---

He should have helped the child. That's fucking depressing. I'm not saying it's good that he killed himself, but it's good he realized that he didn't do what he could have to help save a dying child.

---

being a journalist like that leaves a huge gray area of ethical concerns. I mean... they are in these places to photograph what is actually happening, if they disturb what is naturally occurring than why even photograph the scene? It's not strange that he killed himself, although I think it was more than just this photo that made him do it.

Some people will say he should have helped, others say that his photograph alone has provided more help for all those suffering than anything he could have done for that one starving child by causing international concern and empathy. There is no right or wrong answer, it's really up to you to decide. I think the caption at the bottom of the photo really takes away from it's impact. Instead of focusing on what Mr. Carter wanted us to focus on (the child who was dying and the plight of the African people) we are forced by the nature of the caption to focus on the situation of the photographer.

The caption, in fact, is far less thought provoking than the photo itself. All the responses in this thread are prime examples of why photos should only have a caption relevant to the time and place of the actual photograph. The first paragraph of it would have sufficed and caused more empathetic and understanding responses in regards to a photo which won a pullitzer prize.