INSANE MEDIA REACTION AGAINST PHOTOGRAPHERS

[skieur]

With more people carrying cameras, these days, violence in riots, protests, and demonstrations is getting documented. Police assaulting photographers and other peaceful demonstrators is getting documented as well, leading to arrests and charges.

I can't believe the reaction of news columnists in Canada that photos should be disregarded because we do not know what the photographer was doing before or after the shot,...whether he was part of the violence, riot, protest, demonstration etc.

A criminal act documented by a photo does NOT suddenly become less criminal or less important evidence simply because of what the photographer may or may not have done before or after taking the picture at the scene.

Why should a photographer have to defend his presence at the location where he took the photo?

skieur

 

[Josh66]

A photography blackout is the only answer. It will only work if every single person does it though (which will never happen). Let them tell their stories with no pictures to back it up...




Nothing will change... They will keep doing what they do, and so will we.

 

[Derrel]

Take a look at this Miami, Florida incident. The man who took the cellphone video hid the memory card in his mouth before the cops smashed his phone:

YouTube - ‪Miami Beach Memorial Day Shooting May 30th 2011, cellphone video‬‏

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Censorship - its not working in the US any better than it is in Syria.

 

[e.rose]

Take a look at this Miami, Florida incident. The man who took the cellphone video hid the memory card in his mouth before the cops smashed his phone:

YouTube - ‪Miami Beach Memorial Day Shooting May 30th 2011, cellphone video‬‏

Wow.

And they pointed their guns at them with no physical threat.

 

[NikonME]

How do we know what the videographer did prior to turning on his camera? Maybe he instigated the whole situation and then started recording!..

 

[Mike_E]

How do we know what the videographer did prior to turning on his camera? Maybe he instigated the whole situation and then started recording!..

This is one reason. Another is one that we all know in that perspective and timing make all the difference in the world to the content and impact.

Real live photo journalists are trained and paid to be objective, pocket-togs-- not so much.

 

[NikonME]

Media generally twists what is covered in a way that it fits it's propaganda.

 

[Mike_E]

That's true about a lot of media but at least it's consistent and you can judge by past experience.

Take fox news for instance (please) they have a crop factor of about 2 for good Conservative news and a magnification factor of about 3 for bad liberal news. Even with 'exposure comp' you can still get usable results if you understand the needed compensation.

 

[imagemaker46]

Even beyond all this, photographers have always been treated as a wild bunch of reckless problem children that have to be controlled. I've been to and worked at too many events where I've heard organizers say that they require more security to watch the photographers and make sure that they don't step across any imaginary lines. Photojournalists are portrayed in movies and on tv as troublemakers. This is where a lot of the root problems start. It wasn't a photographer behind the wheel of the car that Princess Diana died in, it was a drunk driver, but who got blamed for her death in the media and by the general public, a bunch of photographers. I've been on the receiving end of this kind of crap for decades. With everyone walking around with cameras the situation is getting worse as everyone with a camera is seen as being a photographer, the majority of professional photographers understand the rules and respect the boundries, those that don't understand, create the problems.

 

[skieur]

How do we know what the videographer did prior to turning on his camera? Maybe he instigated the whole situation and then started recording!..

I hope the above is sarcasm!

skieur

 

[skieur]

How do we know what the videographer did prior to turning on his camera? Maybe he instigated the whole situation and then started recording!..

This is one reason. Another is one that we all know in that perspective and timing make all the difference in the world to the content and impact.

Real live photo journalists are trained and paid to be objective, pocket-togs-- not so much.

Amateurs with cell phones and limited photo adjustment options however do NOT have the skills to be anything but objective in documenting an event through camera use.

skieur

 

[Mike_E]

How do we know what the videographer did prior to turning on his camera? Maybe he instigated the whole situation and then started recording!..

This is one reason. Another is one that we all know in that perspective and timing make all the difference in the world to the content and impact.

Real live photo journalists are trained and paid to be objective, pocket-togs-- not so much.

Amateurs with cell phones and limited photo adjustment options however do NOT have the skills to be anything but objective in documenting an event through camera use.

skieur

Sorry but i disagree.

Maybe not camera skills but one of the key words in my post was timing.

For instance, what if the driver of the car had been using it as a weapon and had tried to kill several people with it before being shot? Using a car as a weapon is no different than using a pistol and would be grounds for using deadly force.

But if the bystander had only shown the cops shooting the guy and not the reason behind their using deadly force then anyone who saw the bystander's video first would be left with the lasting thought that the cops were guilty of murder and not simply defending themselves and others.

Picking and choosing the parts of a stream of events you wish to show is the same as cutting words out of a magazine to suit your own agenda and then claiming that said magazine supports your claims.

It is simply untrue.

 

[skieur]

Well to avoid the hypothetical and stick to the facts in this case, a clear shot of someone torching a police car is evidence of a criminal act, irrespective of before or after events and irrespective of what the photographer did or did not do, before or after taking the shot.

To use the other event that the journalists were talking about, the shot and videos clearly show police assaulting a photographer and it was obviously NOT self defense when a photographer is being beaten with a baton and kicked when he was on the ground.

Documentary and news photography are just that particularly when the media have already reported the events and there is no question that the photos and videos are accurate documentation of what happened. It does not matter who took the shot.

skieur

 

[imagemaker46]

Well to avoid the hypothetical and stick to the facts in this case, a clear shot of someone torching a police car is evidence of a criminal act, irrespective of before or after events and irrespective of what the photographer did or did not do, before or after taking the shot.

To use the other event that the journalists were talking about, the shot and videos clearly show police assaulting a photographer and it was obviously NOT self defense when a photographer is being beaten with a baton and kicked when he was on the ground.

Documentary and news photography are just that particularly when the media have already reported the events and there is no question that the photos and videos are accurate documentation of what happened. It does not matter who took the shot.

skieur

Agreed. Especially when you look at the shots from the riot in Vancouver and it is quite clear with stills and video of the idiot water polo player lighting the cloth after sticking it in the gas tank and then throwing a jug into the police car. It is quite clear, there is no shades of gray, guilty. Shooting video, usually cell phone video, although low res for the most part still tells the story, unless someone walks into the scene half way through, the miami video where the cell phone was smashed was a start to end video. Police don't like to see their faces on the news at any time, especially if they are over the top. They talk about the "mob mentailty" well the police also get caught up in the same situation, although trained to deal with mobs, once the heart gets pounding it doesn't take much to get them going as well, it's not right, but when was a riot ever right. Like I mentioned before even the pro photojournalists put their necks out there during these events, especially if they are not totally prepared when it gets dangerous, eveyone sees them as the enemy, a camera doesn't lie and regardless if it's public or police photographers will become targets. It takes alot of guts to stand in there and record what's going on.