Hi,
so it's immoral not because it's exploitation, but because the
exploitation is blatant?
I've pursued this about as far as I want to now. If anybody's interested,
when I saw the pictures (and I'd never heard of Dale Earnhardt before he
died) I thought it was in rather poor taste, but I couldn't really figure
out why, and I speak as a person with a house full of books of photos
of war, famine, pestilence and death (and other things, of course, that are
warm and fluffy). I can't think of any good rational reason why he shouldn't
do this, although I can think of plenty of irrational ones. Hmm.
---
Bob
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Friday, April 27, 2001, 4:59:42 PM, you wrote:
> For me, it's the fact that they were offered in a public auction format and
> for such an exorbitant price.
> It has a BLATANT APPEARANCE of trying to profit in a big way from the death
> of another. It's not like he had the only pictures of the crash and was a
> scant resource for documentary pictures, nor his he now offering them
> explicitly to the appropriate news organizations.
> He is hoping there is someone mentally-ill enough out there that will get
> their jollies from this sort of thing. If these pictures weren't already
> purchased by the news organizations (other journalists) then what
> journalistic value do they have at this point in time? They've had their
> fill, they need no more pictures of the same thing, so now he is hoping to
> profit from sensationalism and not journalism.
> If I started a bidding war for nude pictures of my wife on an auction site,
> that would have more ethical and moral value than this guy's auction.
> Tom C.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
