PSA: Deadspin Plane Crash Post

"Hooker" (Hooker) 11/29/2016 at 13:38 • Filed to: None

12

37

I replied to the author asking them to refrain from using obvious images of deceased victims in their post. I am in the gray which is likely where I will stay. However, please know, that as a former EMT, this type of thing is strongly avoided. The only time we ever see these type of images is to learn how to better rescue in the future. It is NEVER for public consumption nor should it be. I don’t mind the crash site pictures necessarily, but obvious fatalities should be left out where possible.

People of Oppo, please be mindful of this in your future endeavors. This is never OK.

What I wrote:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

For Sweden > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 13:42

8

Agreed, especially with plane crashes. Usually, plane crash victims are not in one, or even several, pieces.

CB > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 13:46

5

And they don’t even go “hey, by the way, there may be graphic images in this article”. But yeah, why show uncovered bodies? It’s unnecessary. But expecting tact from former Gawker sites is like expecting a bear to not maul your face.

OPPOsaurus WRX > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 13:47

3

do you even Gawker Bro?

I’m pretty surprised they did that too

rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 13:49

0

Agreed, and I was pretty surprised by that.

Frank W. Doom > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 13:50

1

starred. recommend everyone go star op’s comment as well.

Krieger (@FSKrieger22) > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 13:53

1

I once Twitter yelled at a local news channel worker to take down the photo of a shooting victim he shared.

Regardless of cause it just shouldn’t be done. They certainly didn’t consent to this prior to whatever incident happened...

Leon711 > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 13:56

1

I completely agree, even in my own oppo coverage of the Shoreham Airshow Crash I refrained from such basic errors as this.

Keep it respectful.

$kaycog > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 13:58

3

I’m with you on this.

LongbowMkII > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 14:04

0

Billy is a garbage blogger. In so many ways.

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 14:12

1

Lots of people have some kind of sick fetish for looking at dead bodies whenever possible online.

DrJohannVegas > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 14:42

1

Before I jump the gun:

Are you talking about accident photos specifically, or any photos including fatalities?

Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 15:12

1

Almost like they had some sort of horrible photo’s posted in there comment sections that brought it down and they were allllll sorts of butthurt over it. But its cool if they post it.

Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif > Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo 11/29/2016 at 15:15

1

Hooker > Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif 11/29/2016 at 15:15

0

Exactly. But hey, I’m not a journalist so I’m wrong.

Hooker > DrJohannVegas 11/29/2016 at 15:16

0

Any. Throw in injured people without their consent as well.

Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 15:17

1

A Journalist: Someone who is so full of First Amendment they don’t take a second to think if they are a shitty human or not.

Hooker > Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo 11/29/2016 at 15:20

1

Yes. And I’ve never understood it. I think somehow it’s hard not to look when it’s presented. But it doesn’t HAVE to be presented.

Hooker > LongbowMkII 11/29/2016 at 15:21

0

I haven’t read enough of his work to know. I’ll take your word for it though.

Hooker > $kaycog 11/29/2016 at 15:21

1

I worded it poorly, I know. I was so mad. I have a better response to another article somewhere in the kinja-verse. But finding it would prove time consuming. haha. Thanks for your support!

Hooker > Leon711 11/29/2016 at 15:22

0

Exactly. But it’s about shock value and it’s sadly become the norm.

Hooker > Krieger (@FSKrieger22) 11/29/2016 at 15:22

0

Exactly my point. It’s all about shock value. It’s all about clicks. Which apparently mean more to them than actual humanity.

Hooker > Frank W. Doom 11/29/2016 at 15:23

0

Much appreciated. It’s not worded as eloquently as I have done in the past but it will work.

Hooker > rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S 11/29/2016 at 15:24

0

I’m not longer surprised by “Gawker” based posts like this. It’s all about shock/clicks. I just expect better. From everyone.

Hooker > OPPOsaurus WRX 11/29/2016 at 15:24

0

Yep. I’m not so much surprised as I am pissed off. But hey, better to be pissed off than pissed on.

Hooker > CB 11/29/2016 at 15:25

0

Yes. This. I just expect better. Jalopnik has a pretty decent history of not being dicks like this. I hate that it even got shared to their page.

DrJohannVegas > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 15:26

1

Why stop at injured people, then?

Edit: Rather than just be (potentially) combative, I’ll get to the point: I agree that the DS article was not good. Families may not have been informed, the images should have been preceded with a warning about graphic content, etc. It was poor judgement. But I have serious concerns about broad blanket censorship language.

I hate to retreat to the middle, but neither complete prohibition nor unchecked freedom to distribute are reasonable. The balance between the power of images to convey an important story and respect for victims and their families does not lie at either pole of that spectrum.

TL;DR: I’m with you in sentiment, but not in proscription.

Hooker > For Sweden 11/29/2016 at 15:26

0

But it’s for everyone. And every tragic situation. I would not want my family to see my remains on a public site/news source. Nor would I want to see them.

Hooker > DrJohannVegas 11/29/2016 at 15:28

0

I was always taught, going through EMT school that injured/fatality photos have no place in anything but an educational, controlled setting. Not for public distribution and certainly not without consent for any of those situations. It simply goes too far.

Hooker > Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif 11/29/2016 at 15:30

0

Spot on.

DrJohannVegas > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 15:37

1

It’s good to consider that lesson, but as someone who didn’t go through EMT school, it seems a bit funny that the lesson about controlling the dissemination of those images was given in the very educational, controlled setting which (I assume) the lesson deemed appropriate.

If that’s the rule which you think is appropriate, I hope that you had evidence of affirmative consent for all images used in your training.

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 16:10

1

Those stories that get shared to FP that are just a youtube video with some bystander filming a wreck up close... I just don’t jive with that shit.

Hooker > DrJohannVegas 11/29/2016 at 16:17

0

Absolutely. All images in the manuals/text books etc had to have consent first. Images taken by our department never included any images of actual victims and were never released for public consumption.

DrJohannVegas > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 16:44

0

There’s so much to discuss about ownership of images taken in public spaces, consent, and the like that Oppo comments seems like a bad medium in which to have the conversation.

I think that others have said my piece better than I have (which is about the importance of images in conveying important messages, and the dangers of censorship as the default), but I gotta ask:

If your department never included images of victims, why prohibit public distribution? (Or, were you never asked to share the images?)

Hooker > DrJohannVegas 11/29/2016 at 16:47

0

In times of destruction, we were asked not to share them publicly. They were not our images to share. They were the departments. Also, we erred on the side of caution. If there was injury or may have been injuries we did not publicly share. That part is just our policy. It is my opinion that as long as there is no visible victim, you’re safe.

Kanaric > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 16:53

1

I don’t read any of these sites, it’s all sensationalist nonsense from the gawker era still. People on the BLOG here opposite lock are more polite than those on the main pages.

All this is easily avoided, be like me and don’t read them.

DrJohannVegas > Hooker 11/29/2016 at 17:02

1

Parting thought: Ownership of the image and consent of the subject are two different matters. I’m concerned that you’ve conflated the two at points in our conversation (with respect to images used in training), but that just highlights what a tricky matter this all is. Thanks for the conversation.

Hooker > DrJohannVegas 11/29/2016 at 17:04

1

I agree. It’s a very tricky subject. I fear there is a fair amount of grey area. Thank you as well!