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. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
rstuart

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

In regards to the first 'supposition' - that the charity idea was an afterthought -

"Mr Bidgood took photos of the incident and offered them to news photographers who arrived after it happened. 'Do you have shots?' he asked the photographers, according to a witness. 'How much are they worth?'

The witness said Mr Bidgood retracted that comment and said the money should be donated to a charity." (Tom Arup, Canberra, The Age, December 4).

If I'm 'flat out wrong', then so is this reporter and others who reported the incident in the same way.

Regarding the second 'supposition' - that Bidgood could have run in to stop the man -

Why am I 'flat out wrong' here?

Bidgood was right there on the spot. He had time to get a phone or camera out to take a photo. It would have taken the same amount of time to run forward and say something to the effect of, 'Don't do this. I'm a politician. I might be able to help.'

As a person openly professing to be a Christian, you would have thought that would be his first response. What are you suggesting? That he thought, 'No I won't help this man by offering a human hand of kindness in his hour of need. I'll help him by photographing him instead and publicizing his plight. Never mind that he might actually carry out his threat in front of me and kill himself while I'm doing it.'

Of course, Bidgood could have run in to try and help. I don't need to have been an eye witness to know that.

I doubt very much I'm 'flat out wrong' on either of these so-called 'suppositions', but if you can provide precise evidence to the contary, as oppposed to telling me to do my own search, I'll be the first to admit my error.
Posted by Bronwyn, Sunday, 7 December 2008 11:47:14 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
Polycarp

"Hmmmm...now is it just possible...that the person attempting self harm.. is NOT...repeate NOT the topic here?"

As the subject of the photographs in question, 'the person attempting self harm' is central to the discussion here. Whether or not Bidgood's actions were correct pivots very much on the circumstances of his subject, Marat Aminov.

Mr Aminov and his family are stateless. No other country in the world wants them or will have them. They're on Bridging Visas which means they aren't allowed to work to support themselves. They can't access any health or government benefits and survive purely on the charity of refugee support groups.

Mr Aminov believed he and his parents were to be deported. He had been denied a hearing with the Immigration Minister. What else was he to do? Put yourself in this position, BD. I know it's hard for people like you to do that, but just try. What would you, as a young and fit 28-year-old trying to support and protect your aging parents, have done?

There is no way this discussion begins and ends with a photograph. The subject of the photo is not at all the irrelevancy you claim it to be. It's a living breathing man in desperate need whose plight has been aggravated by the callous mistreatment he's received at the hands of the Australian Government.

The cruel irony that the photo was taken by a member of that government is extremely pertinent.
Posted by Bronwyn, Sunday, 7 December 2008 11:55:18 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,

I hadn't read that particular news article. Thanks for posting it. I am not sure what to make of it. Eg:

The witness said Mr Bidgood retracted that comment and said the money should be donated to a charity.

"How much are they worth?" is a question, not a comment. I am not sure how you retract a question like that. It sounds to me like the contortions of a journo doing a beat up to make a good story. By the by, the stories given by News and Fairfax seem to conflict in precisely the directions you expect they would give one got the photos, and one didn't.

That aside, we have no idea why Bidgood was asking the question. You, still without any evidence assume it is for personal gain. If I was planning to use the photographs to get a donation to my charity, my first step would be to establish their worth.

Bronwyn: "Bidgood was right there on the spot .... It would have taken the same amount of time to run forward and say something to the effect of, 'Don't do this. I'm a politician. I might be able to help.'"

From Graham Y's blog (link above), which I took at face value:

"But the photos are actually taken after the event, and they include police who are acting to save the subject from himself."

You have evidence this wasn't the case, Bronwyn? If not, your description of events is just another example of your over-active imagination.

Oh, and a request for future. It was fairly easy in this case to track down the actual copy given your reference. But if you are quoting from the web, a link is so much easier again. It only counts as one word too.
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 7 December 2008 12:44:32 PM
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
The problem is that we can read a number of different articles on this issue and still be none the wiser.

It boils down to: a)if he did it for money he is bad or b) if he did it for charity he is not so bad even if a bit insensitive.

We will never know for sure but as I said before we all make mistakes and the best we hope for ourselves and others is we learn and move on.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 7 December 2008 7:05:38 PM
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
Given Grahams blog, and the certainty a charity got the money.
Given that the news factory that bought the photos made the story.
It is clear no crime has been committed.
Bronwyn maybe let us have an insight into her reason for finding fault.
She clearly has strong feelings about why the man did this, why those feelings should be carried over to the taking of photos escapes me.
Look at the billions of feet of news film, even more news photos, and tell me it is not a beat up.
Will that paper inform us every time it pays for such a photo?
If the man, suffering as he undoubtedly is, knew no one would see what he was doing or pretending to do would he do it?
More than a paper used the Medea that day.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 8 December 2008 4:18:37 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
I'm really shocked at the failure of the majority of posters here (and elsewhere) to give even passing reference to the contextual reasons why James Bidgood M.P. thought taking a photo of a failed self-immolation attempt might be of interest to the media and in turn to the general public.

What was the substantive issue? Marat Aminov, an Australian with a permanent Australian visa, doused himself with petrol and threatened to set himself alight on the steps of the Australian Parliament as part of a drawn-out campaign to get a permanent visa for his parents. The family has been in Australia for 11 years after escaping from Latvia.

In frustration with the lack of action by Australian Immigration, Mr Aminov had also previously tried to bring attention to his cause by jumping on to the floor of parliament. In October, he had interjected while parliament was in session.

The last I heard of this family, Mr Aminov was recovering in Canberra along with his mother, Alija Aminova, a diabetic, who needed medical treatment after being on a hunger strike for three days. She had collapsed in front of Parliament House after watching her son threaten to set himself alight.

So isn't anyone interested in whether the Aminovs' case has any merit? Why did they flee from Latvia? Why it has taken so long for their applications for permanent resident status after more than a decade to be settled? Why does the son has a permanent visa but his parents do not?

Does it not strike anyone else as perverse that, instead of the story being focussed on this tragic case, the media and commentators - professional and amateur alike - became fixated on the rights and wrongs of the action of an M.P. with a phone-camera? And stayed fixated on that sideshow?

Doesn't anyone care about the Aminov family?
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 8 December 2008 1:04:25 PM
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. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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