拍攝著火的人是否該受到譴責用英語寫觀點
Information age, everyone may act as a media reporter, when an emergency, but also faced with the record or rushed up, the choice. For professional journalists and professional photographers, the industry tends to have a "first person, followed by the record person". Speaking of this, many people will think of "vultures and African children" event. No doubt, if the photographer had the ability to engage in humanitarian relief, it is time to put down the camera or phone to save.
Guangzhou this 42 seconds cruel shooting, whether it should be condemned, the key depends on whether the photographer has the ability to rescue the problem. If it is able to alarm, or the conditions of the trapped were pulled out, or can be put on a ladder watering...... He is not to do, should be despised. If he did the duty of the police, other things can not do, standing on the side of the shooting record a public event, that or belong to the "neutral" behavior.
@ Guangdong fire anger lies, the photographer will be trapped last cry of struggle does not deal with public dissemination of audio and video. In the fire, the person who is trapped in the last moment of life, involving the rights of personal dignity, but also related to the feelings of the family. Public dissemination of brutal terrorist audio and video, but also against the public media order. In this view, it is clear that the communicators should learn to identify the reasonable legal limits on the issue of information dissemination.
日前，壹段題為《火災拍攝者殘忍42秒》的視頻在網絡熱傳，視頻顯示，壹戶居民樓突發大火，樓內男子被大火逼到壹個外窗防盜窗上，哭喊著大聲呼救。之後廣東消防官微壹連更新五條微博，“強烈唾棄”和發文譴責視頻拍攝者。據了解，火災4月14日發生在廣州花都區，呼救男子最終喪生。
信息時代，人人都可能充當自媒體“記者”，發生緊急事件時，也都面臨“記錄或沖上去”的抉擇。對於專業記者與職業攝影師，業界往往有“首先是人，其次是記錄者”的說法。說到這，很多人會想到《禿鷹和非洲兒童》事件。無疑，若拍攝者當時有能力搞人道救助，就該先放下攝影機或手機去救人。
廣州這個“42秒殘忍拍攝”，是否該受到譴責，關鍵還要看拍攝者是否有能力救援的問題。若其能報警，或有條件將被困者拉出來，或能澆水能遞上壹部梯子……他都不去做，理應受唾棄。如果他盡到了報警義務，其他事做不了，站在壹邊拍攝記錄壹場公***事件，那或屬於“中性”行為。
@廣東消防的憤怒還在於，拍攝者將被困者最後的哭嚎掙紮的音像不作處理地公開傳播。火災中被困者生命最後壹刻的鏡頭，涉及個人尊嚴權利，還涉及家屬感情。公開傳播殘酷恐怖音像，也是對公***媒介秩序的侵害。就此看，傳播者顯然應學會甄別信息傳播問題上的合理合法界限。