Insensitivity in the media

By Jillian LeBlanc 

On Dec. 4, 2012, a 58-year-old man was pushed onto the subway tracks in Midtown Manhattan. Ki-Suck Han fell off the subway platform seconds before the Q train arrived. Han was hit head on, and dragged by the quick-moving train, bringing him to a painful death. R. Umar Abbasi, a New York Post freelance photographer, was at the scene as the situation unfolded, and captured Han’s final seconds. One of Abbasi’s chilling photos later adorned the cover of the New York Post alongside an unforgettable headline. With the oncoming train mere feet away, Han holding onto the platform for dear life, and a title that read, “Pushed onto the subway track, this man is about to die DOOMED,” The New York Post took a newsworthy story and sensationalized it. The New York Post effectively diminished the worth of one man’s life.

Tragedies such as this can happen to anyone, since people are unpredictable. Han wasn’t doing anything wrong, yet he was a victim to an unstable pedestrian. This story is newsworthy because we all need to be aware of our surroundings. Situations like this could happen to anyone, anywhere, if people are not careful. When we become comfortable with an area, we stop seeing the dangers it possess, and act carelessly. It’s important to let this story be told because it reminds people to be cautious, because sometimes bad things happen. By telling this story, hopefully any future subway incidences will be avoided.

This story is important because it reminds people that humans are not invincible. Our lives could end quickly, and gruesomely, due to inconsequential conflict. Some may label this story as unimportant, due to its lack of global impact, but the truth remains that any one of us could’ve been in that position. J. Bryan Lowder, an associate editor for Slate, emphasizes how this picture hits home, “For New York subway riders in particular, this image manifests a collective nightmare, the reality that something like this could easily happen to any one of us on our morning commutes.” It’s a story that tugs at our humanity, a tale about how innocent actions can go wrong. Han simply tried to calm down an overzealous individual; Han tried to do the right thing, and he was punished.

When looking through different publications of the story, many scold the New York Post for the story’s presentation. For others, if the tabloid isn’t to blame, then the photographer is. The true issue here is outside of the main focus, beyond the New York Post, and past the boundaries of the cropped image. Abbasi captured something brutal; a man, alone, left to fend for himself. There’s plenty of blame to be passed around, but it shouldn’t all be assigned to a paper, or a photographer. A piece of that horrible cake belongs to all those that stood around, and helplessly watched.

The bystander effect took place at this event, making it difficult to place blame for Han’s death. David Brooks, a writer for the New York Times, wrote “So many people do nothing while witnessing ongoing crimes, psychologists have a name for it: the Bystander Effect. The more people are around to witness the crime, the less likely they are to intervene.” It is easy to look at the image, and say “I would’ve helped him,” but that’s not always the case. Media outlets could’ve taken an approach to inform the public about stepping away from this problem of assuming that “someone else will do it,” and instead, do it ourselves. The Daily Mail gathered a quote from Ashley Han, the daughter of Ki-Suck Han, stating, “What’s done is done I don’t want to dwell on what happened but the thought of somebody helping him up in a matter of seconds...it would have been so great.” This one small act of loaning someone a hand could’ve saved a life, or a piece of mind to a mourning family.

Editors at the New York Post wanted a cover that wouldn’t be overlooked at the newsstands. They wanted to stand out, and gain attention, a goal in which they succeeded. The New York Post effectively informed the public about what happened that morning, but their method was off its mark. The headline they used was careless. It did its job, it grabbed everyone’s attention, but the words were harsh and inhumane. They didn’t think about the impact it would have on the family, the Daily Mail reported, “According to family pastor Reverend Woon Tae Chon, ‘The family could not sleep after they saw these pictures. They have been staying in my house and it has been very difficult, very difficult to see them like this.’” The New York Post exploited the Han family’s privacy, and made their mourning more difficult. Han’s death impacted more than his relatives, but the news could’ve presented the story in a more tactful manner. No respect was shown via the New York Post, making this story rather difficult to justify.

The New York Post did not report the story; it feels more like creative fiction than a factual representation. The title is deplorable; it appears like a comic book cover. It poses the audience with a difficult situation, but if you read on, you will see that it was easily resolved by the character’s unknown super strength. Unfortunately there weren’t any miracles that day, because this is not a work of fiction; therefore it shouldn’t be presented as such.

The article itself feels very skewed, New York Post staff writer Kirstan Conley uses the words “psycho,” “grisly death,” and even calls the event a “drama.” The article is dramatic, playing out like a soap opera. Out of the numerous stories online, this is the only one that attempts to reenact the event from start to finish, equipped with painful details. Conley goes on to state, “One witness said Han was dragged 10 to 15 feet.” These details are unnecessary, painting a bloody image that no one needs to see. Han’s family lost a man they loved, and it doesn’t help their healing to hear the details of how their father died.

The public is desensitized to violence and horrific images. We have witnessed bombings, shootings, brawls, images of war overseas, as well as crimes at home. We play video games based on killing, and watch movies that depict gore and torture. The world is accustomed to seeing tragedy, but not in the context of a subway station. Far worse images have graced the media, but the context of the situation makes this photo so heart stopping. Worse images have been viewed on the evening news, but this picture becomes powerful when paired with the big, bold headline, declaring Han as “DOOMED.”

Suddenly our insensitive nature as media consumers wakes up, and society is aghast by the presentation of this story. People accuse the paper for publishing the story, and Abbasi for taking the photo, faulting both for their cruelty. “It feels vulgar to fixate upon such a “private” moment, and no one wants to feel vulgar, so we try to rationalize our looking, try to find a person to blame for “making” us look,” Lowder writes. He claims that we point fingers because it’s easy as third party individuals to identify what is right, and wrong. We wish to do the right thing, and blame others for not doing so, regardless of the situation.

The cover of the New York Post is insensitive, making a man’s final moments into a moneymaking, attention-grabbing ploy. Han has a family, people who care deeply for him, and the New York Post exploited his death. This story could’ve remained anonymous, staying out of the media, and only making an impact on the immediate members affected. Instead, this story was released to the world, forever changing the outlook of millions. Stories like this need to be heard so we can better society, so we can destroy the bystander effect, and help our fellow man. The media needs to remember to tell the story right, and to keep in mind what message they’re sending out. This is an important story, one that needed to be heard.

email: j.omerine@gmail.com