Behavior
Bill Luster
To members of NPPA:L----
I have been dismayed in recent weeks about the behavior of mainstream
media photographers (both still and tv) in regard to our "coverage" of
the Clinton-Lewinsky "scandal.
Did we learn anything during the Princess Diana death and aftermath?
Admittedly, the Clinton-Lewinsky situation is a major story, but do we
have to be within ten inches of every witness that goes before the grand
jury? Did we see the fear in the eyes of Clinton's secretary Betty
Currie? Do we have to chase a subject so closely that we ram into the
rear of their automobile?
I think media photographers are better than that. I believe that we can
sincerely police ourselves. I believe we should before others begin
policing us!
In the last several days, I've had friends call me from major markets
and say to me that "they're never seen it (the media crush) so
bad---even on minor stories" Two people have told me directly that they
WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY be part of a media mob.
We as media photographers have to take direct action. We must set
guidelines that all follow. I am not advocating violating any rights
under the First Amendment, or freedom of press.
Freedom also demands responsibility. Responsible, fair coverage of
individuals that do not violate standards of personal safety and above
all, taste and human decency. We should respect everyone's rights in a
news situation, and leave people with their dignity.
Only when we in the media stop this insidious pursuit, will we gain the
respect of mainstream America.
With Diana, it was the "other folks." Now we are "the other folks".
I am sickened by our behavior.
Bill Luster
Past President, National Press Photographers Association
Fred Yates
On 9 Feb 98 at 20:46, Bill Luster wrote:
>
> Admittedly, the Clinton-Lewinsky situation is a major story, but do we
> have to be within ten inches of every witness that goes before the grand
> jury?
Bill:
Excuse me if I sound a bit pessimistic, but I
just waded through a ton of messages about what
kind of cars to use to make pictures and the
usual follow-up's saying "you're off the topic of
the list."
So, who's right?
I think you make a very good point, Bill. And,
coming from a past-president of NPPA makes your
remarks even more urgent.
Watching the
Clinton-Lewinsky situation makes me think of a
very bad "B-Movie" where the photographers are
all portrayed carrying "potato masher" strobes
that never seem to flash. In the TV
movies everyone gets a 135mm or longer lens
and sits inches from the subject.
However, I don't
think this "real-life" behavior is limited to the
Clinton-Lewinsky situation. Step onto the
sidelines of an NFL game and watch common
courtesy among colleagues go out the window. I'm
sure there has been pushing and shoving at press
conferences and photo opportunities since the
introduction of Tri-X. Everyone is on deadline
and everyone has an impatient editor waiting for
them. However, in a profession where an ego is
important, I think we have let our egos get out
of hand. I know of young photographers who think
it is cool to act the way you describe in your
post, Bill.
This is not meant as a total
indictment of the profession, but I think if you
look at how we sometimes treat each other in news
situations, as well as on this list, we might
understand some of the root of the mob media
"behavior" Bill Luster is bothered by.
We have to respect each other before we can
respect the dignity of those we photograph.
Thanks for a very interesting post, Bill. Just
thinking with computer keys.
Fred Yates
Freelance Cheyenne
Michelle Paulman
In the spirit of Bill Luster's posting, I have a tale to share with you:
Recently we sent a photographer to get a shot of a suspect on the first day
of a murder trial. He was told by the judge to shoot on the sidewalk rather
than in the courthouse, and no cameras were allowed in the courtroom itself.
This was fine - the light would be better outside anyway. However, another
shooter decided to push the envelope, followed the suspect into the
courthouse and even tried to get on the elevator with him.
I fear that some photographers in smaller markets covering local issues
feel they must behave in an invasive way to get their stories. Or, in the
words of Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
In the end, the judge slapped a gag order on the case. Whether or not this
was a direct result of one person's misbehavior, I don't know, but even if
it wasn't, I'm dismayed all the same.
Any thoughts?
Michelle Paulman
The Topeka Capital-Journal
Tom Burton
In a message dated 02/09/98 9:58:52 PM, lus...@AYE.NET wrote:
>In the last several days, I've had friends call me from major markets
>and say to me that "they're never seen it (the media crush) so
>bad---even on minor stories" Two people have told me directly that they
>WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY be part of a media mob.
If we take Bill Luster's point to heart then we would also see that these
media mobs are resulting in boring, repetitive, non-informative images. It's
simply bad photojournalism.
We need to think about what we cover visually. Someone walking into a
courtroom ain't a heck of a picture or compelling video. So why does it take a
mob to cover this event? I don't have the answer.
In the case of Diana's death, I told friends that there was plenty of blame to
spread around. I think the same it true today. As individuals, we have to
decide if we can continue our careers while avoiding these dog packs. If we
are photo editors or producers, I wonder if we can publish or broadcast this
story without using these images. What would we be losing be doing that? Not
much.
But I don't think my idealistic, and some would say naive, outlook will be put
into place. The demand for this tabloid coverage is growing and feeding on
itself. I hope that it doesn't become so bad that, as Bill points out, some
outside agency steps in to police us. That would be disheartening.
Tom Burton
The Orlando Sentinel
David A. Cantor
Bill Luster wrote:
> Only when we in the media stop this insidious pursuit, will we gain the
> respect of mainstream America.
>
Probably not, Bill.
Even if the visual side were to clean up our act, the print side would
still pursue stories with grand jury leaks from annonymous sources,
sullying the journalisitc experience for all consumers. You know we are
in trouble when the Wall St. Journal makes a retraction on one of its
stories along this vein.
In the 80's, one saw the lens length for courthouse arrivals etc shrink
from 35mm to that cursed new-fangled 20-35mm zoom. At the same time,
with the advent and growth of cable television and the tabloidization of
the media with each outlet wanting its own image, the number of people
covering events mushroomed exponentially. Now the word folks are setting
their pace for coverage from the internet, heightening the frenzy!
Whatever self-policing we institute,there will always be others ready to
violate any rules to get a different look and make that sale. Other
posters to this list have alluded to this.
We have a dilemna here, to be sure. That L.A. scene outside of Monica
Lewinsky's house last Friday night was the worst I have ever seen. Worse
than Leona Helmsley outside of Federal Court in Manhattan, where I used
an 18mm to show how poorly we behaved while performing our job.
Even if we develop a consensus within the NPPA, how do get cooperation
with others in the business? If we set up guidlines, how we will explain
the disparity in our coverage with those that ignore our restraint to
screaming managing editors with bulging neck veins and that certain
vocabulary that produces slinking behavior in newsroom denizens?
Ah, why don't we just bag this and talk about cars. Heck, it's a lot
easier.
beep-beep,
cantor
David Wehlage
In a message dated 98-02-10 10:12:23 EST, f8bt...@ix.netcom.com writes:
<< We have a dilemna here, to be sure. That L.A. scene outside of Monica
Lewinsky's house last Friday night was the worst I have ever seen. >>
Just to set the record straight, the Lewinsky mob scene was outside a
restaurant in Santa Monica, not outside her dad's house in Brentwood. In
(enforced) cooperation with the LAPD, the local TV stations and the nets have
agreed to pool coverage of the Brentwood Lewinsky house, with one TV crew and
one still photographer being allowed to park on the street in nine-hour
shifts, 6am-3pm and 3pm to 12am. No other vehicles (other than local
residents) are allowed to park on that street or surrounding streets, and the
police have taken enforcement of loitering statutes to new level, basically
forbidding anyone other than the RTNDA-designated pool camera from being in
the area. It may well be a First Amendment violation, but for the time being
it's an acceptable compromise.
The problem is that once she or her family leave the neighborhood, the
pool rules no longer apply...and the vultures descend. What happened outside
that restaurant was probably the worst example of mob mentality that I have
ever seen...I distinctly remember one sequence showing a still photographer
*holding* Monica at arm's length while blazing away. The TV guys were no
better. I am ashamed that we as professionals have sunk to this level. I hope
that this episode has opened a few eyes in this field, and perhaps a new, less
invasive approach will be forthcoming...but I'm not holding my breath.
Caveat: A week ago Tuesday, our news director circulated a memo that
said, in effect: "Stay out of the mob. There is no news value in that kind of
approach, and we have no business contributing to the feeding frenzy." A
breath of fresh air, to be sure...how long we'll stay on the high road,
remains to be seen.
Dave Wehlage
KCOP-TV
Los Angeles
Paul C. Bearce
In a message dated 98-02-09 21:52:30 EST, you write:
<< Freedom also demands responsibility. Responsible, fair coverage of
individuals that do not violate standards of personal safety and above
all, taste and human decency. We should respect everyone's rights in a
news situation, and leave people with their dignity.
Only when we in the media stop this insidious pursuit, will we gain the
respect of mainstream America.
With Diana, it was the "other folks." Now we are "the other folks".
I am sickened by our behavior. >>
I too am sickened by the lack of professionalism and the outright infringement
of privacy that is being shown by photographers in the Clinton/Lewinsky
affair. I have seen video of photographers pushing and yelling at fellow
photographers just to get what appears to be no more than a mug of Monica
walking to her car. Then I saw on the TV news photogs chasing Lewinsky's
parents down the street - what in the hell do they have to do with this story
and what public good are we collectively serving to get images of them
attempting to avoid the media. I realize that there are pressures put on the
shooters from editors that they shouldn't return to the newsroom without the
photo that everyone else has. Maybe the answer to the whole nasty enchilada is
for top management to take the pressure down a couple of notches and let the
photographers do the job of providing meaningful images to the readers.
my two-cents -
Paul Bearce
Photo Editor
Albuquerque Journal
Fred Danowski
David Whelage (KCOP-TV) wrote:
> Just to set the record straight, the Lewinsky mob scene was outside a
>restaurant in Santa Monica, not outside her dad's house in Brentwood. In
>(enforced) cooperation with the LAPD, the local TV stations and the nets have
>agreed to pool coverage of the Brentwood Lewinsky house, with one TV crew and
>one still photographer being allowed to park on the street in nine-hour
>shifts, 6am-3pm and 3pm to 12am. No other vehicles (other than local
>residents) are allowed to park on that street or surrounding streets, and the
>police have taken enforcement of loitering statutes to new level, basically
>forbidding anyone other than the RTNDA-designated pool camera from being in
>the area. It may well be a First Amendment violation, but for the time being
>it's an acceptable compromise.
**************************************************************************
Just to set the record straight, I don't EVER think ANY violation
of OUR First Amendment rights is "an acceptable compromise." Sometimes,
unfortunately, we are FORCED to comply with unconstitutional enforcement.
Compromising on the First Amendment is a VERY, VERY dangerous thing!!! If
left unchallenged, compromising in this way will undoubtedly stifle us ALL.
Is it only acceptable to you because your organization is PART of the pool?
What about the organizations and individuals not represented by the pool?
Ever since the Diana fiasco, we seem to have forgotten that
freelance photographers have AS MUCH right to be somewhere as we
credentialed journalists. If WE forget this and look down on freelancers
just imagine what the men in blue, and the general public, think!
Fred Danowski
Brooks Community Newspapers
Norwalk, CT
Neil Schneider
><< We have a dilemna here, to be sure. That L.A. scene outside of Monica
> Lewinsky's house last Friday night was the worst I have ever seen. >>
>police have taken enforcement of loitering statutes to new level, basically
>forbidding anyone other than the RTNDA-designated pool camera from being in
>the area. It may well be a First Amendment violation, but for the time being
>it's an acceptable compromise.
To The List
My, my, my...just think what will happen when word about "loitering
statutes" filters down to other police departments across the country. What
a field day law enforcment will have against the press. I hope NPPA legal
eagles don't let this one slip by before it's to late.
Neil Schneider
Neil Schneider
Freelance Photojournalist
Voice...... 718, 897-8885
E-Mail......neils@pipeline.com
N.Y. Reps... IPOL:212 807-0192
911 Pictures http://www.911pictures.com
Andreas Gebhard
In einer eMail vom 10.02.1998 21:46:21 Uhr, schreibt LosBe...@AOL.COM:
>I realize that there are pressures put on the
>shooters from editors that they shouldn't return to the newsroom without the
>photo that everyone else has.
Isn't this exactly the situation why news agencies such as the AP were created
in the first place? We have a couple of papers around here that actually call
us if we're staffing some assignments. Then they don't send any shooter
themselves but rather use his manpower for other photos. And to the reader it
still looks as if a staffer shot the picture, because the credit line will not
be "Foto: dpa" or "Foto: Andreas Gebhard/dpa". They simply leave out the
agency and give sole credit to the individual photographer.
So, editors, call your AP office and then send your shooter to more important
assignments...
Just my thoughts.
Andreas Gebhard
Intern
dpa Frankfurt, Germany
Robert Spencer
The problem with the Monica & company stuff, is that the public, in
spite of answering surveys saying that they are above and beyond this kind
of coverage, always reward those that do it with big rating numbers. Thus,
setting off the whole chain of events, which turns press into Barracuda. I
am occasionally sent out on assignments like this. And my desk wants clean,
in-focus pictures; not stories about my predicament. To help sell papers, to
sell ad's, to pay salaries. But, the guy holding "That Woman" at arm's
length was way out of line.
-Robert Spencer
Steven Frischling
How close is to close to a subject? This has been debated before and
I am sure it will be debated again and again and again for a long time,
if we all just stepped back a a few feet with a 35mm or even a 28mm we
would all have a better photo. I know at a number of Perp-Walks in NYC
there was a sort of honour system when ony 2-3 stills and 2-3 TV-PJs
were there no one had to jump out, no one had to shove, these were
usually the 3AM perp walks or body removals, but it worked. I had been
at a 4:AM "release" of John Gotti Jr, 2 TVPJs and 3 stills, each of us
knew each other, no problems, we sat there talking for a few hours, the
mobsters even brought us coffee as a "thank you" for not trying anthing
stupid (read between the lines), just as Gotti exited the police
station, a photog got out of a car, he must have been sitting there
watching us for 3 or 4 hours, and ran up to Gotti with a wide lens
stepping in front of all of us and proceded to walk 2-3 feet in front of
him for about 20 yards until one of the mobster (alleged mobsters?)
yanked him and just about literaly threw him into the street. Then we
all got our 10 or 12 clean frames and then Gotti turned and thanked us
for our concern for his well being. Those of us standing there had it
worked out so we all got our photos , but all it takes is that one
photog to run up out of no where and make their images and cause us to
jump into the circle.
Is 14mm and 18mm "perp-walk" style photography good newspaper art? Is
it needed or important? Yesteday's New York Times cover photo was of Al
Sharpton taken with, I guess, at most a 20mm, probably a wider lens like
a 14mm or 18mm. The photo is just his head with a few TV & radio mics
in his face and some random photos aiming thier lenses at him. Is this
a needed image or, would it not be better for us to all step back with
an 80-200 and all get a clean image of him leaving a court house and run
that photo, a less "busy" photo?
I do find it interesting that the media, us, has now turned to doing
stories on the media and how we as the news media cover events. It
happened after Princess Di, esspecially after the TV news seemed to have
blamed the still photogs almost instantly, and now with Clinton with a
few newspapers, magaines and TV shows like Nighline showing the news
media in their "home enviroment". Some of the stories are OK for the
most part but I feel that some of them in their quest to cover the news,
are now covering the news covering the news and making all of us, stills
& TV-PJs looking like a mob circus, in a way we are now shooting our
selves in our own foot to make a story.
Anyone have any opinions?
Happy Hunting Y'all
Steven E. Frischling
Freelance News Photographer
Metro Hartford Area, Connecticut
1(860)585-9215 - Phone
1(800)662-5306 - Text Pager
http://www.frischling.com/steven
-
Photo Agency : 911 Pictures http://www.911pictures.com
-
-The Mississippi's mighty, but it starts in Minnesota at a place where you could
walk across with 5 steps down, & I guess that's how it started like a pinprick
to my heart but at this point you rush right through me & I start to drown
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com