It was a glimpse to the worsening problem of security in New York subways these days for thousands of daily commuters. To others this may serve as a warning or even a lesson in Media Ethics 101.

Ki Suk Han got pushed to the rails where he met his death by an alleged deranged man. Nonetheless, people in the scene like freelance photographer R. Umar Abbasi had been there. No one can really say exactly why there were no other bystanders who helped Mr. Han.

Mr. Abassi even took photos of Han while he struggles to come up before the train crushed him to death.

The New York Post's editorial decision to splash its pages with Mr. Abbasi's photos has been criticised in terms of poor editorial judgment and could even be worse than the crime of apathy that Mr. Abbasi and other bystanders seemed to possess by the time the incident occurred.

Mr. Abbasi tried to explain his actions saying he took shots of Mr. Han for his camera flash to serve as warning to the train operator.

Media experts from the academe, who were media practitioners themselves, have mixed reactions regarding Mr. Abbasi's response at the time of the incident but they were one in scrutinizing the New York Post for publishing the photos, which should be part of Media Ethics 101.

Should you help the man first and be a photojournalist, second?

Gawker.com interviewed practicing photojournalists and professors from different American universities:

John Kaplan, professor of photojournalism at the University of Florida and Pulitzer Prize winner for feature photography:

In truth, nobody can say whether the photographer could have safely rescued the victim. If so, we hope he would have done the right thing and rushed toward him first, rather than toward his camera. My belief is that we have to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt. It's almost important to ask whether other bystanders could have safely helped, too?

The blame in this controversy lies directly with the New York Post for pulbishing such a callous, crude and truly tasteless headline while at the same time wrongly splashing the tragedy on the front page.

Ross Taylor, staff photographer with The Virginian-Pilot:

The question you asked, "Do I think what the photographer did was right?" is difficult to answer. I've thought about it a lot today, and I think the answer is one with nuance. I know many people are upset at the photographer for not helping out, and I can understand that point of view. However, without knowing the full extent of the situation, or without being there in person, it's hard to judge the photographer's actions with the respect this situation deserves. "Could the photographer have even been able to help?' is a question worth examining. I don't know we can honestly know this either way.

In addition, who knows how any of us would react in a moment like this? It's not as if these situations arise with preparation in mind. I'm not defending the photographer, but I'm also not against what he did. In the end, it's just hard to know without being there.

I do feel this though: I would not have run the image as the Post did on the front cover. If it was a major news event, one that warranted a need for such a display, that would be one thing. In my opinion, this was not a major news event, and I don't think that was the right call.

John Freeman, associate professor of journalism at the University of Florida:

In my classes, I always teach that photographers should help first and take pictures second. In the contest of "a photo vs. a life," the life should always win. But what if the Post photographer couldn't help the man on the tracks? What if the train was coming too fast, or the victim was too heavy? What if by helping, the photographer put himself in grave danger? I can't fault the photographer entirely. This could have started and ended in what, 10 seconds? Maybe by instinct the photographer reacted and shot flash photos? Where were the other bystanders? Why aren't they helping? Excerpts from Gawker.com