21–30 of 34 posts
"Each jumper, no matter how many there were, brought fresh horror, elicited shock, tested the spirit, struck a lasting blow." That is a seriously overwritten article. There are few things worse in journalism than people who think they're making a big statement, just making the statement bigger. As if they needed to explain what 9/11 did to us all.
Doesnt belong here in hacker news. Lots of things may be interesting to hackers, that doesnt mean you put them on the tech/startup forum. So keep that crap on digg/reddit and let their community fall apart not this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Photography is an artistic numbers game. When Michael Angelo plots out a creation over months, that's one thing. When a photographer grabs an aestetically pleasing bit of snuff porn in a lucky 0.5 millisecond window, that's another. Terrorism, you'll know when it works...they'll be talking about it 7 years later.
Terrorism, you'll know when it works...they'll be talking about it 7 years later. This is definitely the most concise version of my very long rant about the mere premise of this article. Please, for the love of god, let. it. go. I know we gotta go with the whole culture of fear thing, but it's time for a new platform already.
Doesnt belong here in hacker news. Lots of things may be interesting to hackers, that doesnt mean you put them on the tech/startup forum. So keep that crap on digg/reddit and let their community fall apart not this one.
I think you and many others are missing the premise of the article, if you bothered to read it at all. 9.11 is merely a setting for the image. The article is about the image, the inherent "lie" of photography in general, and about people's reaction to images such as this one.
True, this is a famous image from a particularly notable event in recent history, but the same basic article could have been written about many other images, even some of those specifically mentioned in the article itself.
For more in the same vein, check Errol Morris' excellent series of blog entries (http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-first-...); then re-read the Esquire piece. I think you'll have a different feeling about it coming from that perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry I was with you until you said this. Most photographers don't get a good photo with each camera snap. They capture what's happening as it happens and go back to find it. So while Drew didn't capture any other photos - apparently - that took the nation's eye, this photo is still an excellent one.
Not sure where your disagreement is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Photography is an artistic numbers game. When Michael Angelo plots out a creation over months, that's one thing. When a photographer grabs an aestetically pleasing bit of snuff porn in a lucky 0.5 millisecond window, that's another. Terrorism, you'll know when it works...they'll be talking about it 7 years later.
Terrorism, you'll know when it works...they'll be talking about it 7 years later. This is definitely the most concise version of my very long rant about the mere premise of this article. Please, for the love of god, let. it. go. I know we gotta go with the whole culture of fear thing, but it's time for a new platform already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Terrorism, you'll know when it works...they'll be talking about it 7 years later. This is definitely the most concise version of my very long rant about the mere premise of this article. Please, for the love of god, let. it. go. I know we gotta go with the whole culture of fear thing, but it's time for a new platform already.
I agree with what robg said to you: this isn't a photograph of fear. Far from it. It's about an act of defiance at the last moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Terrorism, you'll know when it works...they'll be talking about it 7 years later. This is definitely the most concise version of my very long rant about the mere premise of this article. Please, for the love of god, let. it. go. I know we gotta go with the whole culture of fear thing, but it's time for a new platform already.
I agree with what robg said to you: this isn't a photograph of fear. Far from it. It's about an act of defiance at the last moment.
This romantic pandering about a horrible situation is just not making any sense. He jumped because, perhaps he got scared? Paniced? Decided it was better than suffocation/burning? He didn't say when he got to the ground level.
"Act of defiance"? Who the hell cares?! The building still got destroyed and they're all still dead, the US still went to war, etc.
I guess if emotional romantic babbling is how one deals with emotional stress, then fine. But try not to make factual conclusions
Perhaps the falling man fell in that way by chance? I guess we'll never know, but let's not draw wild and probably invalid conclusions.