http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/28/gutted-photographers-who-didnt-help

Really fascinating topic. What do you think?

Personally I think it's a massive grey area. Generally I think the photo is the most important part, that's what they're there for, to report. I think in a lot of these cases, there's not much you can do. There's no room for heroism if it just leads to another senseless death. I think Donna Ferrato's one is possibly the most divisive; it turns out that she can quite easily stop a small incident of domestic violence (compared to a mob), but chooses to let it happen for the image.

one of the comments below is quite chilling:

'There was a well known Australian war cameraman, Neil Davis, who, although not a stills photographer, was asked the same question - about why he'd continued to film a burning Vietnamese school with children inside, during the Vietnam War. Davis replied that he felt his duty, the best he should do, was to record the event for the sake of history. It's not a photojournalist's job to 'intervene.'

Good cheery Saturday night thread. No worries.