Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/09/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have been reading the LUG notes about this tragic incident. To me it seems that this so-called photo event is similar to a filmed "pseudo-documentary." The accident occurred in direct relation to the pursuit of the photographers. And to make things worse, the images went up for sale right after the accident. Although mine is a very obvious observation, I don't feel that the tread has directly touched it. The LUG appears to place blame on either Di or the photographers or the driver. In other words, if the chase didn't occur then the accident wanted have happened. If the driver hadn't been drunk and/or driving at high speed, then the accident would not have happened. If Di had intervened and told the driver to slow down, then, again, the accident would not have happened. For me the most horrendous fact is that these images have become marketable--especially after having been created in a pseudo-like fashion. Can causing someone death of notoriety mean high profits? Can pushing someone into a "death-trap" situation be equated to a war correspondence dilemma or even another's documentation of a country's pain and suffering? I truly hope that our esteemed social and political mores enter this disgraceful picture. After all, Di's death has nothing to do with Leitz or photography. Please understand that this is my spontaneous reaction to the many LUG member's comments on the subject over the past couple days. I admit that this note is brimming with many holes for criticism, but it may be better to advance the thought as opposed to backtracking my misgivings. Rocky L. Pearson