would you risk...

Corry · Nov 12, 2005

You didn't do anything wrong, Mentos.

photo gal · Nov 12, 2005

no, oh mintily gorgeous one, it is a very good topic! : )

jstuedle · Nov 12, 2005

Please don't be offended oh minty one, we should have taken it off, off topic. I appoligize again for hijacking your thread. You have nothing to feel sorry about.

Verbal · Nov 12, 2005

mentos_007 said:
ok I'm afraid I'm a trouble maker here i started a wrong topic sorry guys

Yeah what John said...our fault. It was a good topic.

darin3200 · Nov 12, 2005

jstuedle said:
As a PJ, you can only stay objective if you can stay uninvolved. The sad fact EVERY journalist gets involved. You can't tell me that a PJ in a conflict don't choose a side and that choice is reflected in there work. Humans are emotional, and that emotion comes through in all of our work if we are worth a darn.

As a neutral "observer" you could not carry a weapon. You then become a target. You would most likely be a target anyway in this conflict. P.J.'s used to be considered neutral observers in a conflict and were "protected" by all sides. Now only Al Jezera PJ's are not a target, everyone else is fair game.

I should stop, this is getting close to a "P" word type discussion, and we can't have that.

I guess that is true. I remember seeing a show called "Ethics in America" on PBS from the 1980s where all the journalists said they would never, ever get involved. But during Vietnam there were Americans who could follow the vietcong on the basis of being a journalist not an involved person, thus carrying a weapon wouldn't be permissible. However, you do make a good point that most terrorist don't make the distinction between enemy and journalist, which is why Iraq has had the highest number of journalist causilties and kidnappings of any war. BBC camerman Dess Wright said that people say they aren't involved, but by being there they are involved, they can't be bystanders.

Its such a deep and complicated debate

mentos_007 · Nov 13, 2005

well I heard from our guest, that Vietnam was the last place where a photog could go and feel almost safe. now in Iraq they have to move with guards - surrounded by soldiers, they can't walk alone and so on... ahh... I'd like to go there...

Xmetal · Nov 13, 2005

My area of shooting is risky, Mounting my camera to the side of a car is risky - if it falls off the car and breaks i'm up the creek without a paddle. Why do I do it? because i'm willing to take the risk to get a better picture!

Same goes for me directing traffic on location because i'm always running the risk of being run over. :lol:

In all seriousness, PJ's that have been to places like Iraq go for the same reason - they want that killer picture that will set them apart from the rest of the Journo crowds so they are willing to run the risk of either damaging or losing equipment or worse being shot and killed themselves.

bace · Nov 13, 2005

BLAP BLAP BLAP!!!

MON DEM POOP!

jstuedle · Nov 14, 2005

In all seriousness, PJ's that have been to places like Iraq go for the same reason - they want that killer picture that will set them apart from the rest of the Journo crowds so they are willing to run the risk of either damaging or losing equipment or worse being shot and killed themselves.

It's the adrenalin rush, pure and simple. Some like the thrill of the roller coaster. Some like the thrill of driving fast in traffic on a 1/2 mile oval. Some can't live without jumping out of a perfectly good airplane. And some like to be war correspondents, or SEAL team leaders. It all depends on your personal need for that adrenalin rush. And if you get that killer shot, it just adds to the rush.

bace · Nov 14, 2005

I wish I could be a Fighter Pilot or a F1 Driver. Speed is my ultimate adrenaline rush.

I can barely see out of one eye though. Which is funny, cause the eye that I can barely see from is the same eye that makes it difficult to take pictures.

santino · Nov 14, 2005

I think I would, money wouldn't be the reason. It would be satisfaction to have the ability to show people what's really going on, victims of war would have a voice to the rest of the world, a voice which I would deliver through my pics. BUT, I'd be scared as hell.

jadin · Nov 14, 2005

I'd go.

I really don't know how I'd cope with what I saw however.

One of the most haunting iraq photos I've seen is here (I couldn't find the original story): A car was headed to a check point. It was ordered to stop but did not. The driver and passenger were shot. The occupents of the car was a family. In the front seat were the mom and dad. In the rear their three children. One of the soldiers took photos : iraq child

I'm posting this from a PJ point of view. Not political. If it still hits too close to no-mans-land, feel free to edit it.

Edit : The event from a PJ. But missing the photo(s) I linked above.

panzershreck · Nov 14, 2005

i'd go

i've already got a beard, and i wouldn't carry a gun, after all what if the people shooting are like bears? you don't shoot at bears, you yell and wave sticks... sounds like a sound plan!

we can practice our strategies in the ganglands of LA :thumbup:

jstuedle · Nov 14, 2005

You wave sticks, they wave machetes and AK's. Sounds like a plan to me.

jadin · Nov 14, 2005

panzershreck said:
i'd go

i've already got a beard, and i wouldn't carry a gun, after all what if the people shooting are like bears? you don't shoot at bears, you yell and wave sticks... sounds like a sound plan!

we can practice our strategies in the ganglands of LA :thumbup:

Wouldn't you plan your strategies off an area that the people are staying alive??