The press thinks much of itself and it's right to inform. They hide behind the publics right to know--as if that were a thing really. Documenting for history and identifying and being intrusive in people's personal tragedy are not the same. "How do you feel about the tornado that just ripped your entire block apart?" The paprazzi etc...I would pull their journalism card and tell the to be editors.

I also agree with the photographer even though I was totally horrified when I saw those who fell.

I think a good test of appropriateness would be "if this was your father, husband, brother, uncle or other family member would you want that photo circulated?". My answer would be no.

I agree with the photographer, for the reasons colleenoz wrote.

I think I remember seeing that photo, and it brought home the fact that these people faced a horrid fate. May they all rest in peace.

amicus, you make a good point about the contrast between the photo of Fr. Judge and the falling man. Is the former 'acceptable' because he is already dead and at peace (that photo has been called a latter-day Pieta), while the falling man is not? The latter evokes the horrors of that day in such a painful, visceral way - we wonder what we would have done, imagine the flames and the terror, and the picture is therefore almost unbearable to look at. Is that why we have more qualms about showing it, even though the man is not readily identifiable, unlike Fr. Judge's photo?

Its often hard to see history in photo form. But I feel its necessary. Without film records of atrocious events, many wouldn’t believe that they happened. Be it the horrors of The Holocaust, a black man’s lynching, the Challenger explosion, etc. the photo record is important.

Photojournalists believe photos depicting human tragedy in times of horrific events, are pictorial evidence that should be archived, just as written accounts. As graphic as many historical photos are, they serve to document the reality of something that words alone might not adequately preserve.

Yes.

The photographer was right to capture the image. The paper was right to run it...because it was impossible to identify the person.

This standard has been applied when you see a photo where the faces of bystanders have been deliberately blurred.

For the first two weeks or so after the WTC came down, the whole city smelled like burnt hair. We all knew what we were breathing in. My friend's neighbor, an elderly Holocaust survivor, was traumatized by the familiar smell. I think that if "Falling Man" had been my relative, I would have taken a bit of comfort that for a brief moment, they soared in the glorious sunshine, rather than choking on smoke and feeling the searing pain of fire.

To me, the ugliest part of the aftermath wasn't the photos. It was the influx of tourists, most of whom had never even been to the WTC, wanting to visit "Ground Zero." Everyone's nerves were frayed to the breaking point. I remember being on a bus and having some tourists ask me if they were on the right bus to get to "Ground Zero." I just snapped, and told them that if they wanted to look into an open grave, they should just go dig up their own dead grandmother.

Time passes....and makes it less "raw". Photos are a document, proof of what happened. In a hundred years.....it may feel less raw to our children, to look at photos of what is now a current event.

Time passes....and makes it less "raw".

Exactly. We also noticed that the people who jumped were mentioned in the new documentaries (20th year) more then they were in prior accounts.

Funny, but time has not made it less raw for me. I still can't watch documentaries or anything about it....images like that still cut me like a knife.

Some years after 9/11, I saw it again, and the horror of it stayed on my mind, and I seriously broke out in hives. I am not opposed to the photos or the documentary. It is real. I just can't look at that picture any more.

I have a different take. First, I'll say I believe an independent and unbiased press is and always has been an essential element to maintain free, democratic societies. I sincerely regret the contraction of the print media in the US in recent decades and find that few of the fluffy websites that have tried to respond to the opportunity to participate in national journalism are anything more than feeble failed efforts.

Items always come up where the misleading mantra of "journalistic ethics" is said to come into play. Not so much ethics as risk assessments. Will publishing this information attract positive or negative attention for us? Will doing so cause anyone or anything harm that we'll be criticized for? Is this a reasonable act that we can justify that will be seen in a good light and will allow us to scoop or skunk our competitors? And sure, a lot of actions are the result of self-justifying reasoning.

It's been said that the press, under very limited time circumstances, writes the first draft of history. There's no time to do anything other than take a quick best shot and then move on. Future drafts, revisions, error corrections, etc., are done by others. Photojournalism predates television, a way to show people not present what an event involved. There's not always enough time initially to sort out the appropriateness of what's "printed", in words or images.

Now to this specific photo. It captures part of what happened in this tragic event. It depicts one of the awful experiences some victims had. I see nothing wrong with it and those who don't want to look at it don't have to.

I did not see the documentary, but I read a story about the attempts to identify the man, and saw some of the other shots of him falling https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a48031/the-falling-man-tom-junod/.

I also see no reason why it shouldn't have been taken, or any reason why it shouldn't have been published. I find it hard to even consider opposition to it - even if the man could be identified from the photo, it's that hard reality that brings truth to the tragic event. Photojournalism is a vitally important part of remembering history.

I'm less conflicted about images like this than I am where a photo journalist sees a tragedy about to unfold that s/he could prevent and instead grabs the camera.

Seeing the photo is just a small part of what those on the scene experienced (saw, heard, smelled, touched). Having listened to and spoken with a physician (FDNY medical director) and firefighters who were there, is truly something I will never forget.

Agree w/ @Toronto Veterinarian, "Photojournalism is a vitally important part of remembering history."

Same issue can happen with any journalist on the scene with an event in progress, the need to strictly report the event rather than becoming part of it. The opportunity to prevent something from happening must be very, very infrequent.

I purposely haven’t read the responses but my initial feelings are that yes the photographer has a valid point about documenting. Having photos depicting the tragic toll of that day, I think is important historically. However I also believe very strongly that more restraint from the media at large should be considered. To report something with pictures like that during a news cycle for a day and/or have it accessible as an archive for those who are interested is reasonable, but IMO, the media outlets will often see $$ and exploit the tragedy at a cost to family and loved ones for their financial benefit. I’ve felt this way for a long time, so I’m very interested in going back now to read how others view it. This is a great post, Amicus, I always enjoy threads like this because usually I end up learning a thing or two.

I agree with Raye Smith. If I had a family member who had died in that horrible tragedy, I would hurt more every time I saw that picture.

I also agree with Lukki, news outlets don't publish that photo for altruistic reasons; they don't care one bit about the families of those who died that day. It's all about the money and if it doesn't get them money, they won't even bother.

I do resent the many ghouls today who grab their cell phones to capture an event where their AID would have been of use -- even if it were only dialing 911. There's a lot of voyeurism; a milder version is the need to disseminate a photo of one's dinner plate. (Aren't we all *living* without photographic evidence of it on some website?)

woodrose, do you feel the same way about, say, the photo of the little Vietnamese girl who was napalmed? Or the Robert Capa photo of the falling soldier in the Spanish Civil War?

This sort of issue came up after Sandy Hook and whether the images of the scene should be released or kept private. The decision was made to not release them and I am glad. The descriptions I've seen alone are horrific enough. The trauma that was suffered by those on scene was such that many needed treatment. There's no need to spread those kinds of images so sickos can salivate over them while the rest of the community gets traumatized over again.

"If I had a family member who had died in that horrible tragedy, I would hurt more every time I saw that picture."

Yes, history is like that.......but that doesn't make it wrong to continue to share and talk about those painful events. To see the tragic things that happen and remember that people, not just statistics, were affected. History is full of hard and tragic stories, and the painful memories that come from them, and that pain is important and shouldn't be forgotten. No good comes from covering up painful things, whether in public or private lives. If we do that, if we turn the death of people into impersonal statistics, we do everyone harm in the end.

I agree that the photos should be shown if the person can't be identified. I was horrified when I first saw the jumpers and then heard the crash as they hit the ground as it happened on that day. The first fireman killed was hit by a jumping person. Then for years, I hadn't seen the picture until this year. It needs to be documented. The picture of the little Viet Nam child running with her clothes on fire sent a powerful message and shows the horror of war. She later spoke of it and thankfully is well.

With increasing technology and social media, it seems unless some people can SEE something (preferably a live video), they don't believe it's true. Was surprised to learn some don't believe Sandy Hook really happened.😩

as with all things in life - it all depends how you look at it.

if you are cynical about MSM or journalism in general, then you would not want that printed.

if you feel history needs to be documented, then you do see the value of it.

my feeling is, although horribly, horribly tragic, it does need to be seen and documented. it is a part of our history and needs to be seen, heard and read about to our future generations.

mdln has a good point: some people need to See to believe. unfortunately that is the worlk we live in today - Social Media, Conspirarcy Theorist, Fake News etc... shut out the 'noise' and do your own research.

OP here. colleen, apologies if my words were confusing. I don't believe anyone thinks those who fell from the building did not do so on purpose. Certainly they knew it was just a faster way to escape the inevitable. But most newspapers decided to avoid the word 'jumpers' in an attempt to be more sensitive. to the families of those who made that decision.

The falling man's identity was originally thought to be the loved one of a family who did not appreciate the speculation. They could not reconcile his choice with their religion's view on that subject. So they were elated when other photos showed what appeared to be an orange T-shirt, under the man's white shirt. The family said he didn't own an orange T-shirt and they were greatly relieved that the stigma felt, due to their religion, was now lifted. They felt more at peace, not knowing any precise details of their loved one's death.

However the family of another man (who is now thought to be the correct identity in the photo) was contacted to discuss the matter. They agreed there's a strong possibility it is their loved one, and were not offended by the photo, even if his identity is ever confirmed. It was not after all, a gory photo of a pulverized body on the ground, but an image that will be an emotion evoking reminder, of the reality some faced that day.

As well, a man in the documentary, noticed a female he believes to be his wife, (in other photos) falling from the same building. He said nothing could cause him greater pain than her death itself. But believing that she chose that route gave him peace, knowing she had access to another option and freely carried out her choice not to stay in the inferno.

I myself wrote "In general, I don't see why close up pics of the dying or deceased are necessary for public viewing. Maybe a more distant photo to document the numbers, but identifying photos are only needed for investigations, IMHO." I do believe occurrences that will become historical events, (both joyous and tragic) should be photographed. But I'll specify that I consider images to establish the passing of an assassinated political leader, war enemy etc. different than photos not taken to provide proof of identity. I think many news photos could be less precise, in respect for family members, or at least require permission before publishing.

"it seems unless some people can SEE something (preferably a live video), they don't believe it's true."

That's been true for over 150 years - before there were photos, there were sketches and wood engravings. People have had an appetite for visuals of the news for centuries.

When you see someone falling through the air they are not experiencing a moment in the sun, they are experiencing a time of total horror. To jump instead of being burned to death is not much of a choice. I do not want to see this. I gather most people have no idea what they are seeing.

The media are ghouls. It is where the money is.

I saw the photo of the falling man a few days after the attack and it’s always a stark reminder of wartime casualties. In this case the photojournalist would not be able to help the falling man. But in another time in another war, another photojournalist was succumbed to enormous guilt and eventually could no longer carry on with his life. An excerpt from the photo of a vulture and the little girl, Pulitzer Prize Photograph Brings Awareness—At a Price, James Madison University,

“His professional detachment seemed to override his own humanity and morals. His decision would have a lasting effect on the world, as well as a lasting and overwhelming effect on Carter himself.”

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=evision

I appreciated seeing the photos. I watched the buildings on tv as they came down. I saw it, but my mind was trying to fully comprehend it like a lot of people were. I'm not a fan of censorship. There is no shame in what these people did. They were victims. I've read that the people jumping were taking control of what little bit of their lives they had left. I don't know if they felt a little bit of peace with that decision, but maybe they did.

I lived in NY at the time. I watched it on TV. We lived on the other side of the Hudson so could see the smoke. It was a horrific morning.

On TV everything was live. The cameras didn't know what was coming. There were so many people who jumped out of the burning buildings. There were people jumping holding hands. Many were women holding hands. Men holding hands with a women. So many jumping alone.

It was the most shocking morning I ever experienced. Watching it live and seeing the dark smoke drifting over the river from my windows was so very disturbing and sad.

Photos are such an important part of history. I have mixed feelings about the photos being shown while the person still has a family. Mother, father, wife, children. No identity should be given.

The horror of it all is similar to the photos of the Wars this Country fought. Starving people in ghettos, gas chambers, soldiers laying dead. Pearl Harbor. On and on.

This tragedy is a part of history. It should be documented.

Jane

"But in another time in another war, another photojournalist was succumbed to enormous guilt and eventually could no longer carry on with his life."

The photo taken of the vulture and the child was a powerful wake up call to the world about how awful the situation in the Sudan was. But, having taken the photograph, why on earth did the photographer simply watch the child in question instead of scooping her up gently and trying to get her to assistance?

I'm not surprised he felt guilty on reflection. He was.

I remember that photo referred to by palisades, and my family discussing it at the time. We were all shocked to the core.

colleen, you commented precisely what we (the larger 'we' not just my family) all felt... "But, having taken the photograph, why on earth did the photographer simply watch the child in question instead of scooping her up gently and trying to get her to assistance?"