The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Those Photographs

Those Photographs

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Sorry Spikey but that post is way out there.
Foxy the PM has spoken to him, that is all he needed to do.
You are quite right Turnbull, the gutter press, and a lot more pounce on any thing to try to blacken this government.
Its not a new tactic, throwing mud not policy's is a birth right for conservatives in opposition.
Let us not ever forget, it was the deepest part of gutter journalism, this paper that printed the pictures they paid for.
Now look at the photos, any chance this man could have intervened?
Truly what is his crime?
If he could have stopped it then do it take no photos, but who would step in?
In our I do not want to get involved world who would jump in risking life and limb?
This story is a beat up, never forget if he was a free lancer it would not be a story, we who are content with Rudd's government must remember if you or I took this photo no blame would be placed.
Spikey, Rwanda, Somalia, ten million feet of horrible film even more photos and printed words, all made us aware of evil acts.
Food aid was born because of them, lets remain closer to reality.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 6 December 2008 4:21:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart
We probably will never agree on the aspects of the internet filtering debate. Surprisingly I am generally anti-censorship and if this was any other situation that did not effect the wellbeing of children - say someone advocating censorship of euthanasia discussion, political discussion etc - I would be up there with you in support.

If anything I do agree with you that if the technicalities of filtering won't work then it would seem pointless and I confess, while not a technical luddite, I am no expert on this aspect and tend to talk about the issue from an ideological point of view.

However in relation to Bidgood's actions I do have a real problem with his behaviour. It was not illegal that is true. But there are many things that are not illegal but might be considered unethical or ill-thought out.

My understanding is that he offered the money to charity as an afterthought once his actions made the headlines. However if this is not the case and I mispoke, I would still ask why a man in his position would be moved to take such a photograph. Perhaps with high hopes, as a citizen I do expect our politicians to lead by example.

Belly,
I say this as someone who supported Labor winning government. If we cannot criticise our 'side' when we feel their actions are ill-advised we are no better than the Coalition continually defending Work Choices while it continually proved to affect adversely those disempowered groups in the lower income sectors.

Everyone makes mistakes, I know I have made some doozies. If Bidgood is truly sorry and only he can be the judge, then we have to forgive and move on. What are mistakes if they are not opportunities to learn.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 6 December 2008 7:49:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Certain jobs bring certain responsibilities - as a former public servant I signed a confidentiality agreement which is permanently binding. Politicians, no doubt sign similar. They are also responsible for ALL their constituents as Examinator pointed out. That any money Bidgood may have made is being given to charity, no way mitigates his ill-thought act.

Was taking the photo inappropriate for anyone? My answer is no.

While I don't imagine myself taking such a picture, we do live in an age of instant communication, I would be surprised if no-one saw a photo opportunity. Was it in good taste? No. My point remains that it was wrong for a politician to behave like a paparazzi hack. Kevin Rudd took suitable action.

Well said Foxy, Pelican, Bronwyn, Examinator. Foxy am in agreement with you about Turnbull also - very disappointing.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 6 December 2008 8:35:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican: "if the technicalities of filtering won't work"

It will work to an extent pelican. It will reduce the odds of people happening across porn by accident. It will not stop teenagers once they start seeking it out.

pelican: "say someone advocating censorship of euthanasia discussion"

Senator Conroy: "I mean as an example, I had an argument, not an argument, a discussion with Senate Estimates with a Greens Senator, who believed that euthanasia websites shouldn't be blacklisted."

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/mediareport/stories/2008/2405376.htm

As for the picture, well Graham Young's blog entry on the subject sums up my position pretty well. He gave the link above, and of course is a much better wordsmith than I. However, in answer to some of the suggestions made above:

- The idea of donating the picture was never an afterthought. In particular he did not try to get the cash, then change his mind when sprung.

- The picture was taken after the event. The federal police already had control of the situation. In particular he did not take the picture instead of intervening to help the subject.

- I don't know what Bidgood's motivations were. As far as I can tell neither does anybody else. Some here are seem to be telling us what they imagined Bidgood's motivations to be, and pronouncing judgement based on that.

As for me I don't have a clue what he did wrong. I can understand he crossed some people's moral boundaries. You can tell that because they use emotive, not substantive words to criticise what he did. However, unless they can describe what he did wrong in substantive terms it is probably their moral boundaries that need adjusting, not Bidgood's.
Posted by rstuart, Saturday, 6 December 2008 9:56:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly

"AH you do know he did not make any money don't you? He asked for a donation to charity."

I haven't checked, but, like Pelican, my bet is that the charity gesture was an afterthought and very much a cynical ploy to redeem his public image.

"Would he have been better running in to stop the bloke?"

Yes.

"Did he have a chance to do that?"

I don't know for certain but my guess is that he would have.

"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."

This is an invalid comparison, Belly. These people were already dead. They couldn't be helped.

The man who doused himself was very much alive. His actions were an anguished cry for help. He should have been assisted immediately, not photographed.
Posted by Bronwyn, Saturday, 6 December 2008 10:14:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn,

As it turns out, you are flat out wrong in each of your suppositions.

If you google "Bidgood photograph", you can get a fairly complete picture of what he actually did in 10 minutes or so - certainly less than it took you to post twice here.

It is so much more fun to cry foul at some imagined crime, I guess.
Posted by rstuart, Saturday, 6 December 2008 10:22:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy