You've beaten me to it, Pelican. I agree with all you say and cannot believe that five posts down and not one person has expressed an ounce of sympathy for the tragic plight of the man involved here.

What is this? A human tragedy or a photo opportunity? Shame on a politician of all people. He was the one person in the perfect position to lobby on this man's behalf and actually help him. But, no, his one and only response was to photograph him and attempt to cash in on his misery.

Why am I not surprised that this fruit loop also chooses to spout religion as his idea of a political contribution to the urgent problem of climate change. Kevin Rudd should dump him immediately.

And once he's done that, perhaps he, or his Immigration Minister, can give this poor tormented man, who in sheer desperation has resorted to harming himself to have his pleas taken seriously, a private hearing.

AH you do know he did not make any money don't you?
He asked for a donation to charity.
Would he have been better running in to stop the bloke?
Did he have a chance to do that?
If he committed a crime I am not sure what it was.
If a storm is blowing your next door neighbors roof of do you film it or just watch?
Is his crime as bad as the BBC paying young Palestinians to throw stones and filming it?
Real life story no rubbish.
Time and again on the once NSW highway of death tragic scenes appeared on the nightly news.
You may have got a glimpse of me or my mates, taunt and under great stress we moved aside as two men with cameras took the shots you never saw.
Those good men mates in a way, independent camera men, took file footage for the police.
Helping the coroner and I would not watch those films again ever, they however did no wrong.
Graham has it right reporting the news is not usually making it.
This story came from a Medea place that once had pride but is not unlike another outlet owned by the same man.
The publisher of the photos paid for them.
It is typical of that once proud paper that they used both the photos and the story to get further in the gutter.
Tonights news will be very boring if we outlaw such harmless things as this.

pelican: "What a low act. Making money out of the misfortune of others is hardly credit worthy or entrepreneurial."

He didn't make any money. In return for giving the photographs away he asked the news organisation make a $1000 to charity connected to disabilities.

You know pelican, you make me sit here and shake my head is despair. On the one hand, in the our discussions elsewhere on internet filtering I have to hand it to you: unlike the others you haven't invented reasons, invoked weird fantasies or or anything else. You simply say the truth: you personally don't like the stuff and you certainly don't want your kids seeing it. We disagree on the importance of downsides of filtering, but I think reasonable people could disagree on such a complex issue.

Yet, yet ... here we have such a simple thing. A photograph. A photograph taken by a politician of a man making a fairly extreme political statement. A very newsworthy statement, yet it would probably of been ignored - except this politician took a photograph of it and gave it to a newspaper. And apparently we can't agree on even this. You, presumably, would prefer the photograph of a man threatening to kill himself was never taken, and certainly not sold to a newspaper. I look at it from a different perspective.

If we can not agree on a single photograph, what hope do we have on agreeing on what should be on the internet?

And don't for a second imagine all photographs are as simple in their cause and effects as this one. The implications of every man + dog being able to record his view of the world can get very complex:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081204-editorial-does-amazons-iphone-app-go-too-far.html

Graham Y
The MP’s actions weren’t illegal but were definitely inappropriate and insensitive.
Perhaps it’s our different views on the purpose/function of a politician.
The role he accepted was to faithfully represent all his constituents.
A position that he knew or should have known (and is well compensated for) meant that it is beholden of him to show extra public decorum and restraint.
All electorates consist of a very wide range of people with an equalling range of ability to cope. I can’t see how his action enhanced his capacity to inspire confidence in his sincerity or concern for the desperate end of that coping range. The money is irrelevant unless it went to the individual and even then I think his action was in poor taste.
It won’t help Kevin’s ‘caring government image’ either
It is this systematic impersonalization of individuals necessary to sustain a regime whose prime purpose is to make profits that I find so unpalatable.
I would dispute that this instance needed a photo to tell the story.
Also his status is what made it front page and centre on all TV news. Certainly not the issue or the individuals involved. The news maxim ‘if it bleeds it leads’ comes to mind.
In the light of other less spectacular stories but more important ISSUES that didn’t get past the editor’s desk a claim of cheap sensationalism comes to mind.
It's been dealt with I hope the MP learned his lesson on the stupid, the bad , and the ugly of PR.

Dear Belly,

I feel sorry for the PM more than anyone else
on this one. He needed this like a hole in the head.

As if he doesn't have enough on his plate with the
Libs blocking everything worthwhile that he
tries to achieve, and criticizing ...boy are they
experts at that.

I cringe every time Turnbull opens his mouth in
Parliament. What a disappointment he turned out to
be. I had high hopes for him at one stage, but
now he's just become a party hack.

As for Julie Bishop, she's so misinformed, it's
embarassing.

Anyway, I think that the PM should actually have
a few words to say to his MP. As I said, he
really doesn't need to have this kind of publicity.
There are more important issues to worry about and deal
with.

Heydee, hodee. I saw a man get his face smashed in by a rampaging mob last night. His little daughter was beside herself. But hey, what the heck! Had my camera at the ready just be chance and snapped off a few gooduns. Channel 9 and 7 both offered me a miserly $1 grand.

I'm off to 10, they'll pay more.

The man and his daughter? Hell I dunno. Last I saw she was cradling his bl**dy head. Not my business to interfere. It's a free world where it's no crime for a man to make a buck.