12/21/24
April 11, 2005
Shooting a Crash: After photographing the fatal hydroplane crash of racer Mike Neuharth Saturday, a photojournalist asks his peers whether to sell the shots: "I'd like to know if any of you have been faced with a situation similar to this and how you reacted."
I find it interesting that the photographers only dilemma is whether to sell the photos. He apparently has no qualms about linking to a gallery of the said pics for the whole world to see on the internet... As it happens, I don't really have a problem about looking at the the images. To me, it doesn't seem any different to watching Really Exciting Near Misses on TV... at worst, it's just a bit of tasteless voyeurism. The only people who would have a problem looking at these is obviously the family... This does remind me of the Tour de France centenary book I bought a couple of years ago. Great book, really comprehensive history, pictures, all the facts and figures and great Tour stories. But one thing: why the hell did they need to include a glossy picture of Fabio Casartelli, lying covered in blood, dead, in a ditch?! That is not a fitting tribute to the man. That was tasteless to the extreme and ruined a good book for me.
posted by afx237vi at 10:20 AM on April 11, 2005
afx237vi, I haven't seen that book or particular photo, but I'm a strong believer in showing things as they are. Casartelli's death eventually led to changes in cycling's helmet rules. Had the accident been swept under the carpet, important changes might never have been made. I'm all for publishing these types of photos. Any damage to the family and friends is more than offset by the good: improved safety equipment, rules, and public pressure.
posted by dusted at 11:41 AM on April 11, 2005
I go the same with 'dusted', although I just want to see them because it's a crash. My sympathy for just about anything has been stamped out over the years.
posted by LawnWrangler at 12:15 PM on April 11, 2005
Any damage to the family and friends is more than offset by the good: improved safety equipment, rules, and public pressure. So, did you think it was okay when they went after the Earnhardt autopsy photos as public records following his fatal crash?
posted by chris2sy at 12:41 PM on April 11, 2005
Well, wasn't there a company trying to prove that their equipment functioned properly in the Earnhardt crash? That seems more like a liability lawsuit than any "public good."
posted by dusted at 01:47 PM on April 11, 2005
I'm all for publishing these types of photos. Any damage to the family and friends is more than offset by the good: improved safety equipment, rules, and public pressure. Except when it isn't, which is almost always. Often, the accident doesn't teach us anything we didn't know before, but instead only reinforces the truth that precautions don't always work. And even when it does, it does so in retrospect, in time, when all the data is in and people who know something about it have had some time to go over it and offer a reasonable conclusion. I have heard the "it makes us all safer" argument many a time, and rarely is it ever valid when used to support the immediate release of photos or video showing a fatal accident
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:57 PM on April 11, 2005
If putting the photos out in public is going to create some benefit, tell me, which member of John Q. Public is going to see those photos on America's Most Hideous Accidents For You To Watch From The Safety Of Your Couch and come forward with a brand-new hydroplane safety idea that no one who's actually involved in the sport has come up with? You don't know the answer to that question. But if the pictures are hidden out of a sense of decorum, it's a 100 percent certainty that no one will come up with a new safety idea as a result of the public scrutiny they might have received. I don't see any compelling reason why an athlete's serious accident or death in a sporting event should not be widely publicized. There are countless examples where the publicity associated with a gruesome accident has led to increased public safety -- the girl killed at the Columbus Blue Jackets game, spectators killed at auto races, and others. But I don't think any of this justification is necessary. It was a public spectator sport. The accident was newsworthy. Hydroplane racers are out of their fucking minds. Film at 11.
posted by rcade at 05:24 PM on April 11, 2005
Unless he had said wether the person died I don't think we would have known...I mean if some posted them up as a crash photo without saying death on them do you think we would have been able to tell if he died in that crash no. I think an image that showed a man falling from a building, being shot (impact) thats tastless and shows no heart but please how many of you clicked that extra link to have a look.......YOU ALL DID to see if it was graffic the world of sports we want to see everything, instant replay, highlight reels, dvd s of events, web pages for the sports image addicted we want to it and then we are basturds when some says the word death, you pussy lot don't ask for it if you don't want it.
posted by bballcoachreid at 06:15 PM on April 11, 2005
I said: If putting the photos out in public is going to create some benefit, tell me, which member of John Q. Public is going to see those photos on America's Most Hideous Accidents For You To Watch From The Safety Of Your Couch and come forward with a brand-new hydroplane safety idea that no one who's actually involved in the sport has come up with? ..and rcade replied: You don't know the answer to that question. But if the pictures are hidden out of a sense of decorum, it's a 100 percent certainty that no one will come up with a new safety idea as a result of the public scrutiny they might have received. Well, of course I don't know the answer to that question. I'm asking you, or anyone else who wants to make a blanket statment in favor of "sure, publish the photos, what's the harm?", to offer any possible insight that might come out of showing such photos to John Q. Public. That argument is just too vague. I want anything, preferably a concrete example, but something more than, "It might do some good, maybe." I don't see any compelling reason why an athlete's serious accident or death in a sporting event should not be widely publicized. That's a different matter altogether. "So-and-so died in a hydroplaning/free-climbing/equestrian/tiddlywinks accident," followed by some appropriate level of detail, is one thing. Photos, videos, or prurient details are another matter. There are countless examples where the publicity associated with a gruesome accident has led to increased public safety -- the girl killed at the Columbus Blue Jackets game, spectators killed at auto races, and others. Are you quite sure it was the publicity that did it? Or was it an incident that brought a safety issue to light and that would have prompted action regardless of any publicity? This has come up over and over again in the whitewater world. There's a guy called Charlie Walbridge who publishes an annual safety report with fatal accidents and near misses. That report doesn't include speculation disguised as fact, and it doesn't indulge in judgment without very good reason. It's the product of good information-gathering and careful thought. The result is good information that is actually worth something when it comes to creating safer practices. Again, what would John Q. Public have to add to the discussion? Charlie talks to witnesses and anyone else knowledgeable who might have something to add. But I don't think any of this justification is necessary. It was a public spectator sport. The accident was newsworthy. Hydroplane racers are out of their fucking minds. Film at 11. A lot of people get labeled as "out of their fucking minds" because they do things that other people consider a tad too adventurous to partake in themselves. As a sometime participant in out-of-their-fucking-mind activities, I can tell you that I'm sure not doing it to create a public spectacle, to appear newsworthy, or to have other people make judgments about what I do and why I do it. You don't see the harm in publishing the photos; I do see the harm. Unlike most folks with an opinion on this one, I've been there, and I do see it.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:55 PM on April 11, 2005
Often, the accident doesn't teach us anything we didn't know before, but instead only reinforces the truth that precautions don't always work. That in itself is a benefit. Maybe the next racer with three kids will say "you know what - I'm not doing this anymore." If a guy with the very best safety equipment dies, the least that could happen is for his fellow racers to examine the specifics of the crash and make an informed decision on whether to continue racing. And that's only one possible benefit. Like rcade said, you're certain of no good if they're hidden. I ride motorcycles and fly airplanes, and I've looked at a lot of "crash stories" in magazines and internet forums. Both of those activities involve risk, and one of the best ways to mitigate the risks is to let others learn the hard way for you. At the high end, there's a culture of respecting the victims by trying to learn why the accident occurred, even if it's just to highlight a particular rider/pilot error. At the low end, I know lots of young motorcycle riders that purchased good protective gear only after seeing some nauseating wreck video on the internet. It's not new information, but the presentation is more convincing.
posted by dusted at 06:59 PM on April 11, 2005
Like rcade said, you're certain of no good if they're hidden. There is a big difference between concealing information about an incident and not posting pictures of it. I'm not talking about "hiding" anything, I'm talking about putting the information out in appropriate places and with an effort to avoid sensationalism. I understand what you say about "crash stories". See what I posted above re: Charlie Walbridge's safety report. That's not published in the mainstream press, and it's not written for thrill factor. It's written to be sobering and scary and it is both. Again, there's a big difference between creating something like that for the edification of those who might actually benefit from the knowledge, and putting it out there for the entertainment of those who will never come closer than the pages of a magazine. I think the subject of this thread was clearly a lot closer to the latter.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:07 PM on April 11, 2005
Seriously. If he has to ask he knows the answer.
posted by geekyguy at 07:35 PM on April 11, 2005
That's a different matter altogether. "So-and-so died in a hydroplaning/free-climbing/equestrian/tiddlywinks accident," followed by some appropriate level of detail, is one thing. Photos, videos, or prurient details are another matter. I see nothing inappropriate about these crash photos. You wouldn't even know it was a fatal accident without the cutlines. Even if they were closer to the edge, I don't have much quibble with feeding the prurient interests in the public, considering that the core appeal of an extreme sport like that is the danger involved. Without prurient interest, there's no sport. No one would be watching a hydroplane race conducted at sensible speeds, and it takes spectators to afford those boats. Are you quite sure it was the publicity that did it? Or was it an incident that brought a safety issue to light and that would have prompted action regardless of any publicity? We're wandering into chicken-or-the-egg territory here. Without wide press coverage of the kid getting killed by the puck, the NHL gets a lot less pressure to act. The idea the league would risk alienating its ticket holders with vision altering nets, without public outcry, seems far-fetched to me. As a sometime participant in out-of-their-fucking-mind activities, I can tell you that I'm sure not doing it to create a public spectacle, to appear newsworthy, or to have other people make judgments about what I do and why I do it. So what? If someone is participating in a spectator sport that's life-threatening, am I supposed to buy a ticket but avert my eyes if Darwin catches up with them? You seem to be arguing that it's wrong for the press to show people the consequences of dangerous sports by showing photos and video, because the press is covering it "sensationally" -- as opposed to some droll annual safety report with a tiny readership. But if we're going to protect the public and the participants from seeing fatalities, why not go all the way and just refuse to sell tickets or invite the press to these events? Problem solved.
posted by rcade at 07:04 AM on April 12, 2005
In these arguments with LBB, I can't decide if I'm Dan You Pompous Ass or Jane You Ignorant Slut.
posted by rcade at 07:08 AM on April 12, 2005
I'm pretty much with rcade all the way - people engage in the sport with the expectation of publicity - hell, they count on it - and that goes two ways. Additionally, it seems the more we try to protect the public, the more harm ends up being done. However, I think the moral quandary here isn't about using, or publishing, per se, but profiting from the tragedy. From that stand point I can sympathize with LBB.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:46 AM on April 12, 2005
rcade: Even if they were closer to the edge, I don't have much quibble with feeding the prurient interests in the public, considering that the core appeal of an extreme sport like that is the danger involved. Without prurient interest, there's no sport. No one would be watching a hydroplane race conducted at sensible speeds, and it takes spectators to afford those boats. I'm really troubled by the implications of what you say here, and I'd feel a lot better if you'd said "the core appeal to a spectator", or better yet, "the core appeal to me". No doubt that's what you meant to say (I hope). If not, well...a sport doesn't consist of the spectators; the heart of the sport is the people doing it. Always. Your statement, "Without prurient interest, there's no sport," is bad enough when reworded as, "Without prurient interest, there's no spectators,"; in the original, it's flat-out tragic. I know that in the USA, there are a lot of people who are sports fans but not in any way sports participants...but what I hear in your words is an unconscious admission of a belief that, yes indeed, sports don't exist unless they're on tee vee, the tail wags the dog, and that's how it should be. But that's not the reality, and that's where I also have to disagree with Weedy as well. You see things being driven by cameras and publicity because you aren't a participant, and it's solely through cameras and coverage that you experience the sport. But that's not how the sport actually happens. People engaged in minority sports don't do so with the expectation of publicity, because the publicity usually isn't there. Coverage is absent far more often than it's present, so no, I don't think there's any habit of playing for cameras that won't be around. There's plenty of sport without "prurient interest"; when was the last time you saw a whitewater rodeo on television? Before OLN started doing it, when did you see bicycle races on US TV? And yet they still happen. The participants make them happen. If lack of coverage made them dry up and blow away, they'd have been gone long ago. But just because you can't see it on television doesn't mean that "there's no sport". Also: In these arguments with LBB, I can't decide if I'm Dan You Pompous Ass or Jane You Ignorant Slut. Well, there's no particular reason you have to be either, unless you feel like it. In this case, as it happens, we just have a very different experience in a particular area. You see sports like this as a spectator, whereas I've seen the elephant.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:00 AM on April 12, 2005
Oh, and one more thing, rcade: You seem to be arguing that it's wrong for the press to show people the consequences of dangerous sports by showing photos and video, because the press is covering it "sensationally" -- as opposed to some droll annual safety report with a tiny readership. On the matter of diction: Webster's defines "droll" as "having a humorous, whimsical, or odd quality". I'll give you droll. Go read it. Go read the details; the accident I mentioned back at the beginning of this thread is in there. Go read it, come back, and tell me how "droll" it is.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:07 AM on April 12, 2005
I thought one meaning of droll was dry. My bad there. As for the rest, you're reading my comments too narrowly with all this talk about the purpose of sports being to feed the TV monster. I'm talking specifically about extreme sports and spectator sports. Of course some people participate in sports for the sheer joy of the activity. I would be proud to medal in curling whether or not a single person watched me do it. But that has nothing to do with what I said. Do you dispute that the core appeal of an extreme sport is the danger involved, or that an expensive sport like hydroplane racing would not be possible without spectators?
posted by rcade at 09:23 AM on April 12, 2005
lil_brown-bat said: ...followed by some appropriate level of detail, is one thing. Photos, videos, or prurient details are another matter. Why? You still haven't said what the harm is, except that you don't like it. Lots of people might not like it, but if photos and videos help make a sport safer or more accountable, I don't care about someone's hurt feelings.
posted by dusted at 10:09 AM on April 12, 2005
rcade: Do you dispute that the core appeal of an extreme sport is the danger involved, or that an expensive sport like hydroplane racing would not be possible without spectators? I don't know enough about the economics of hydroplaning to answer the latter. The economics of sports are pretty complex these days, and I don't think that spectators directly fund any sports anymore -- not even in mass-appeal, stadium-based sports like baseball that can command very high seat prices. My impression is that most minority sports leagues operate pretty close to the edge in terms of dollars, and I expect a lot of the money comes from sponsorships, which is not exactly the same thing as spectators. I note that the Augusta Southern Nationals have corporate sponsorship from Coke and Miller, two deep-pockets sponsors who support an awful lot of sporting events. Who knows if the spectators consume enough Coke and Miller to make up the sponsorship money? As for the core appeal of an x-treem sport being the danger involved, yeah, I do dispute that. That's a common perception among those who don't do such sports, but if there's a valid study out there showing that this is the mindset and the motivation of most participants, I have yet to see it, so I think it is just perception and speculation. I can state that I know many more participants for whom danger is not the "core appeal" than I know ones for whom it is. There's a difference between doing it because of the challenge and doing it because of the danger, and IME people in the former category far outnumber the latter...which is a good thing. If you do something primarily because of the danger, you're missing the degree of self-preservation that you need to take into such an affair. Over time, people like that have ways of becoming horrible reminders.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:14 AM on April 12, 2005
dusted: lil_brown-bat said: ...followed by some appropriate level of detail, is one thing. Photos, videos, or prurient details are another matter. Why? You still haven't said what the harm is, except that you don't like it. Lots of people might not like it, but if photos and videos help make a sport safer or more accountable, I don't care about someone's hurt feelings. Do you care about someone's hurt feelings if photos and videos don't help make a sport safer or more accountable? Do you care if they're shown to an ignorant crowd that doesn't know what it's looking at except that it's wow, really gnarly, man, and can't do a single thing to make the sport safer or more accountable? Let's use another example: photographs of an airplane crash. You see some of them in the mass media, but you don't see 'em all. You don't, for example, routinely see detailed photographs of what's left in the cabin afterwards. There's a good reason for that, and it's because it does some harm and no good to show 'em. In terms of safety advances, those photographs are of use to people working in the airline safety field, not to the general public. Show them to you or me (I'm assuming you don't work in the airline safety field), and it's just a grossout. Neither of us is going to see something or take note of something that the NTSB people wouldn't catch, and showing us the photos wouldn't do anything to enhance air travel safety. No gain, no justification -- don't show 'em.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:22 AM on April 12, 2005
LBB - I absolutely agree with the dichotomy between sport as a spectacle and as an activity - however, hydroplane racing is such an expensive event that the seperation of public, sponsorship and publicity perhaps puts it into a different category. Though I think that the point you're making is more than valid.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:44 AM on April 12, 2005
Now here's a valid use of a horrible photograph in the interest of public safety.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:58 AM on April 12, 2005
I don't like the idea of someone deciding what is appropriate for me to see based on a presumed public reaction to it (e.g. "wow"). The line drawn between sensationalism and what is newsworthy varies for each individual. I agree that the photographer has a moral dilemma, but it is a personal dilemma. Should he profit off of such a tragedy? I do not agree with trying to sanitize what the public can see just because it may offend sensibilities. It doesn't even matter whether it serves a specific public interest, such as furthering safety. Photographs portray reality in a way that no report or article could ever equal. This is life. More specifically, this is life in hydroplane racing.
posted by bperk at 11:31 AM on April 12, 2005
My impression is that most minority sports leagues operate pretty close to the edge in terms of dollars, and I expect a lot of the money comes from sponsorships, which is not exactly the same thing as spectators. I don't see how that distinction matters, since sponsorships are being bought because of spectators.
posted by rcade at 11:40 AM on April 12, 2005
bperk: I don't like the idea of someone deciding what is appropriate for me to see based on a presumed public reaction to it (e.g. "wow"). That's unfortunate, because that judgment is made constantly, at every newspaper in the country. They don't show you those photos of the inside of the wrecked airplane, do they? rcade: I don't see how that distinction matters, since sponsorships are being bought because of spectators. If you know the details of the economics of hydroplane racing, please, post them here. We're both guessing, and I'd love to know exactly how the sport is financed. I was responding to your assertion that "an expensive sport like hydroplane racing would not be possible without spectators" -- apparently put forth in defense of the notion that the spectators want and expect danger and wrecks, so we gotta give 'em danger and wrecks. If that's what you believe -- that people/corporations won't watch/support a sport like hydroplane racing if they don't see wrecks -- I think that needs some support beyond mere assertion. If that's not what you believe, then we're in violent agreement.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:40 PM on April 12, 2005
That's unfortunate, because that judgment is made constantly, at every newspaper in the country. Which only illustrates why the internet is a good thing, and dinosaur blogs are heading for extinction.
posted by dusted at 02:20 PM on April 12, 2005
I didn't say anything about fans showing up to see wrecks. I stated that no one would be watching a hydroplane race conducted at sensible speeds, and I think it's silly to even debate whether or not danger is the big draw for drag boat racing spectators. As for the economics, here's a hydroplane sale page that shows some examples of prices. Looking at those boats reminded me of being passed on Interstate 95 once in Florida by a truck carrying the Rum Jumbie Super Cat. It was so big I thought NASA was developing a garish new spacecraft.
posted by rcade at 02:56 PM on April 12, 2005
that people/corporations won't watch/support a sport like hydroplane racing if they don't see wrecks Corporations will support something that gets watched and nothing that does not. Take a look at a hydroplane racing video or tv show once and you'll be clear on what the draw is; as someone who's suffered through a number of such videos, I can assure you the only draw is the danger of doing something you shouldn't way too fast. The whole sport is like holding 100 yard dashes on ice: someone might make it to the finish line, but that's not the point.
posted by yerfatma at 04:18 PM on April 12, 2005
I would talk to the family of those involved before making them anymore public because I would not want to see them all of the time if it were my husband/brother/son/dad, etc...
posted by JustMe3603 at 12:27 AM on April 13, 2005
I've also photographed a fatal sports accident. The situation was somewhat different, in that I was a close friend of the deceased. Some time after all was said and done, I told the deceased's mother that I had some photos taken on that day if she wanted them. She refused, and that was that. No one has seen them, no one will see them -- ever. I don't know if I would have done anything different if I hadn't had any connection to the victim...but then, I've also taken photos of athletes who were hurt, in agony, down on the ground and losing the race of their lives, etc. I keep those images if I think they're technically good images, but I don't show them to the world, because -- and call me a snob, or selfish, or whatever -- I don't think the world at large deserves to see them. That's the best I can explain it. (I was also approached once by a ghoul from the production staff of some Really Exciting Near Misses tee vee show, asking if I had any good stories about Really Exciting Near Misses. I told him to go fuck himself.)