• Woman's 'Selfish' Selfie Lands Her on the Cover of the New York Post
    49 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Elfy;43070893]May come to a surprise to you but these devices have front cameras.[/QUOTE] No shit but it doesn't change what I said.
I dont know about you guys, but in that situation, if I were the sort of person to take a selfie (which I'm not), I don't even think I'd be able to see those people. It would have been even worse if she snapped a picture as he was falling if he had jumped.
So...someone took a picture of her taking a selfie? Calling bullshit
Even if it is true, I feel like she doesn't exactly deserve life in hell for this.
I'm pretty sure it's not the actual woman, guys. The article says she left as soon as she was approached by the reporter. I don't think that means she stopped to let them take a photo of her taking a selfie. Which means they staged the photo to make a cover photo about a photo that they think is a bad idea, which is apparently cool when a selfie isn't.
That's some serious CSI level enhancing.
for all we know she didnt know what was going on
What exactly is the issue here? Even if she was talking a selfie with a suicide jumper in the background there's probably fuck all she could do - even if it is messed up there's absolutely no reason to get this butt-mutilated over it.
this is such a bullshit story lmao horrible journalism
where's the actual selfie? The angle she's at would have obscured or plain out missed the action on the bridge
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;43070919]Why was somebody taking a photo of her taking a selfie and why was she perfectly ok with it?[/quote] I'm not sure how familiar you are with photography, but there's plenty of reasons. Maybe her friend was taking a funny picture. Maybe some random dude came up and thought how stupid she was to take a selfie in front of a jumper, and she's a person that doesn't care about pictures being taken of her. Maybe there were dozens of people there taking pictures, and one guy pointing a camera 10° lower than everyone else, and she didn't notice. [quote]If it was at that angle her head would have obscured the view of people.[/QUOTE] Why is everyone assuming that we're seeing her phone's picture anywhere? [editline]4th December 2013[/editline] I mean, she could have still been lining up the shot when that picture was taken, or hoping that it was framed well, since seeing a screen would be pretty hard in that light [editline]4th December 2013[/editline] Have some better pictures, even the daily mail is than that paper [img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/04/article-2518095-19D907D500000578-691_634x422.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/04/article-2518095-19D8FBD300000578-355_634x622.jpg[/img]
So there's also a bunch of other people taking pictures and videos of this, what makes her photo or her being there taking photos make her any worse?
I'm afraid to actually visit the sources' comment sections because I'm 90% sure half of it will be "WHY IS SHE TAKING PICTURES INSTEAD OF HELPING WHAT A FUCKING SELFISH WASTE OF HUMAN"
[QUOTE=Greenen72;43070879]Or, you know, that enhancement is a picture taken by someone else? I don't know the proper protocol for jumpers, but if I saw 3 guys in the distance like that, I'd assume it's just workers doing maintenance and continue taking pictures of the bridge[/QUOTE] This was my first thought, I didn't realise one was a jumper until I read the article. I just saw 2 men with helmets and another in a bright orange coat and assumed they were a maintenance crew. For all we know, this alleged 'suicide selfie' woman was just waiting for them to 'finish' their 'work' so she could get a pic, and when they didn't move for 20 minutes, she just took it anyway.
Looks to me like she just took a selfie with the bridge in the background like i'm sure a lot of other people do from that angle
[QUOTE=Tinter;43071056]Even if it is true, I feel like she doesn't exactly deserve life in hell for this.[/QUOTE] Nobody will remember in a week anyways. It's not like her life is over.
damn she should have run a few miles, gotten on that bridge, and helped that man dressed in a red swirling cape instead Honestly from the angle of her phone it doesn't even look like he's in the photo. Plus, that's the phone's front camera -- anything further than maybe twenty feet is a very large dot.
[QUOTE=dai;43071696]I'm afraid to actually visit the sources' comment sections because I'm 90% sure half of it will be "WHY IS SHE TAKING PICTURES INSTEAD OF HELPING WHAT A FUCKING SELFISH WASTE OF HUMAN"[/QUOTE] A good chunk of the comments seem to be saying that the newspaper is being stupid. I don't really understand how the newspaper is even allowed to do this, it seems like it would fall under some sort of harassment.
[QUOTE=Thlis;43072604]A good chunk of the comments seem to be saying that the newspaper is being stupid. I don't really understand how the newspaper is even allowed to do this, it seems like it would fall under some sort of harassment.[/QUOTE] More defamation than harassment. Lying about someone in a news paper is an easy way to get a gigantic lawsuit as well, as they didn't even question her.
[QUOTE=dai;43071696]I'm afraid to actually visit the sources' comment sections because I'm 90% sure half of it will be "WHY IS SHE TAKING PICTURES INSTEAD OF HELPING WHAT A FUCKING SELFISH WASTE OF HUMAN"[/QUOTE] it's like, how the fuck will she help anyways? I mean really, look at how fucking far it is, what is she going to do, drop [B]everything[/B] and race towards the bridge? the people bitching probably wouldn't have done anything either.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.