Do you self-censor?

[zinnanti]

The journalist has sanitised the image, he has provided a myriad of possible agendas that may have nothing at all to do with the tragedy depicted, he hasn't provided a complete coverage, in truth he has decided himself what the story will be.

So, what if I lost the shot all together because the fire department told me to leave for not respecting the victim's privacy?

Would that tell a better story?

 

[zinnanti]

There is a HUGE, ENORMOUS, VAST difference between what these guys are best known for (documentary work for weeklies, monthlies, and personal projects) and spot news reporting for a local newspaper (which I will call "journalism" as a category of photography for purposes of this rant).

I completely agree with this assertion. The context of the situation hardly justified going further than it did.

Yet, I'm open to ideas - which is why I posted the issue.

 

[2F/2F]

So, what if I lost the shot all together because the fire department told me to leave for not respecting the victim's privacy?

Would that tell a better story?

You are obviously well intentioned, and that is good, but you do not seem to understand what your job entails. You need to learn some raw information about journalism, and if after that you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. I am not personally attacking you or your intentions, but your views on what your job is and your apparent lack of understanding of journalism.

Nobody will kick you out for "not respecting the victim's privacy". The above quote reveals another fundamental flaw in concept: There IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC, and everyone assisting at the scene knows this and knows it well. Every journalist knows this, and would not fear what you feared in your post. (Especially not from firefighters, who 100% of the time have been either welcoming of or just plain oblivious to my presence.) They will kick you out for being a jackass, getting in their way, or being unsafe. Besides, judging by the photo, you may not have even been "in" in the first place, so there was nothing from which to kick you out.

You should be able to recite CA penal code section 409.5 (d) by heart if they tell you you can't be there...that is IF you are really a credentialed member of the press. In fact, it should be printed out and carried with you along with your press I.D. at all times, if it is not printed on the back of the press I.D. itself.

Where did you get your journalistic training? How did you end up shooting spot news if you do not know this stuff? Were you REALLY on assignment as a credentialed member of the press, or were you just there with your camera hoping to squeeze a shot in as a contributor? Every single thing you have stated thus far makes you seem like the latter, not the former. If you had been there on assignment, you would have had your press I.D., been welcomed in, been afraid of nothing over which you have voiced fear, and would have felt a greater responsibility to your editor. What exactly is your relationship to this publication? Are you a contributor who has happened to have had something published in the past?

Photography is not the same as journalism. It is time to learn at least the VERY basics of journalism if you wish to continue in this field. No reasonable person expects perfection, or even great results all the time; especially if you are starting out in the field. However, a reasonable person does expect you to know what your job is and the responsibilities and sacrifices it entails.

 

[zinnanti]

It is time to learn at least the VERY basics of journalism if you wish to continue in this field.

You're right. I think it's time for me to go back to school and enroll in Mass Media 101, do an internship writing shorts off the sheriff department pressboard and generally suck up the horrid morale of present day newsrooms.

Let me just share one alternative route to journalism. By the way, if it means anything, I'm a member of the Los Angeles Press Club and I'm very familiar with P.C., s. 409.5, subd. (d). (And, it's on the back of my LAPC placards.)

My beginnings with journalism evolved through my practice as a lawyer. I've been involved in four nationally covered cases. I was lead counsel in two of those. (I'm tired of dropping names. If you need to know, contact me privately.) As well, I've been involved in about a dozen local matters covered by the two local dailies. In the course of this experience, I can honestly say that I've been interviewed hundreds of times - radio, print and television.

Moving into journalism so far I have placed about 120 pieces on a freelance basis. This includes photo and copy. These pieces have entailed hard news, as well as features. The latest major work I did was the inauguration. I covered it for my local daily and About.com.

This car crash spot coverage was a spur of the moment thing where the newsroom for one of the local dailies asked for photos. And, yes, I had my LAPC ID on me. (I haven't bothered to get LASD and LAPD credentials because I don't regularly cover the crime/rescue beats.)

P.C., s. 409.5, subd.(d): One thing you learn in the practice of law is that there is the law and there is reality. Being in an outlying area gives way to far more "reality" than "law." I mean, seriously, if the fire department directed you to go one place or another - thereby restricting your access - what are you going to do? Scream, "Look out. Penal Code, 409.5!!"

One thing you learn as you go along is - more bees with honey. You're the expert. Tell me - is photojournalism restricted to the four corners of the photo? If you have any experience as a photojournalist, you know that, unlike other forms of photography, it is not. Depending on the subject matter, that photograph starts long before the shutter is fired.

Reality: I'm not going to mix it up with the fire department and stress out a victim over spot coverage on a t/c at an intersection. I'm familiar enough with editorial for this daily to know that this is going to be a "Hey everyone slow down" short illustrating the unfortunate asinine behavior on our local streets.

My local daily ran my inauguration photos instead of AP. I don't know what their terms with AP are, but they paid to run my materialinstead. I had great images of families and kids taking in history. Know why? More bees with honey.

Outlying jurisdictions: You're never going to have access if you act like a jackass. On the other hand, sometimes, you have no choice but to make the push. For example, I covered the Metrolink crash. It was the most bizarre incident because all the "officials" heavily restricted access to the scene. It was like "the secret train crash." That was a time for the other tact. That's the time when you have to ride the line between serious tension with the subject or losing the shot. And, as I'm sure you know, you don't have a lot of time to think about it.

In the coverage of which I've been a subject, I wasn't too impressed with the media. Just like investigating for copy, with photojournalism, you have to be prepared for the follow up. You have to anticipate the moments that may occur after you think you have your materials in the bag, so to speak.

I didn't see any sense of follow up, particularly, back in August and September of 2007 with the McClellan case.

I since do some research for a reporter/anchor at the LA CBS affiliate. She's a great person and a hard worker, but her produced sends her out with zero background on a subject - not even a laptop with a wifi to Google subject matter. She's totally handicapped in coverage. As I'm sure you're aware, budget is a huge consideration. and, if you can get past the afternoon budget meeting and still place photos and actually get paid, maybe that's not so bad.

You're right. Maybe I should take a class to learn the very basics. (Hey car crash victim! Say cheese! Penal Code 409.5!!)

 

[lns]

You are obviously well intentioned, and that is good, but you do not seem to understand what your job entails. You need to learn some raw information about journalism, and if after that you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. I am not personally attacking you or your intentions, but your views on what your job is and your apparent lack of understanding of journalism....
Photography is not the same as journalism. It is time to learn at least the VERY basics of journalism if you wish to continue in this field. No reasonable person expects perfection, or even great results all the time; especially if you are starting out in the field. However, a reasonable person does expect you to know what your job is and the responsibilities and sacrifices it entails.

Hi. I used to be a professional journalist, though not a photographer. I was a newspaper writer and editor. I made my living at it for a few years. I chose photographs for publication. I taught young journalists in college too.

I find your comments in this thread about the role and duties of a journalist totally at variance with my personal experience. I can't imagine to whom such views of journalism properly pertain. Maybe to an LA paparazzo? Or perhaps an overnight photography stringer with a police scanner? But I get the sense the OP works for a mainstream local publication.

Clearly, there are different possible approaches to any job. But the OP seems to have taken a reasonable and praiseworthy approach that, frankly, is par for the course in the profession. I really don't think he needs any journalism lectures.

-Laura

 

[Ed Sukach]

... But the OP seems to have taken a reasonable and praiseworthy approach that, frankly, is par for the course in the profession. I really don't think he needs any journalism lectures.

Brava, Laura. BRAVA!!

 

[2F/2F]

Hi, Tony.

Thanks for your response. It is is the first post you have made in the thread that shows that you actually have some experience in what you are doing. Prior to it, the content of your posts made you seem like the guy I mentioned in my last post, pussyfooting around, worried about all kinds of dumb stuff, and not only missing the pic, but doing it on purpose. You can hopefully understand my opinions, as they were based on the information I had. I apologize.

And to make myself clear, I am not suggesting that you go take classes or that college is the right place to learn how to be a journalist. You learn stuff by working for good editors (and a variety of editors) for a long time, not from a lecture. Additionally, it is a constant learning and relearning process. I tried some classes in college, and learned practically nothing. The only thing it did was get me published (writer first, then photographer) so I had tearsheets to get other work. I really was Nazified regarding journalism early on. I started as a writer then went to photography. AP Photo has four National Directors of photography. One of them is the gal who gave me the basic idea of what it means to be a journalist. She was very much into theory and concept, and taught me no technique whatsoever. All we did is look at photos and talk (argue) concept and theory for hours. Very far from a nightcrawling, muckraking, Paparazzo dude with a police radio. Try having her over your shoulder for two years, beginning six weeks after picking up a camera for the first time, and maybe it will explain my views, which, admittedly, are strong. She was sick of terrible journalists working for her, and wanted to really stick the claws in me early, right after I picked up a camera. (I had first met her 10 years prior.)

Nor am I suggesting the CHEEZE, 409.5, camera in the face of the patient approach. Covering an event and sticking a camera in someone's face are not the same thing. I never said anyone should be obtrusive or stick a camera in anyone's face. My point was that 409.5 exists, and privacy in public does not, therefore you should not have had any fear of being asked to leave, as long as you were just doing your job. The statement did not relate to judgment calls, just the fear of being kicked out.

 

[zinnanti]

No apology needed. Likewise, sorry if I was snide. (I need to watch my tone in posts.)

We're all always learning. Hence, the thread.

BTW - Making a transition from law to journalism is weird. Actually, my goal is documentary photography versus day in and day out hard news.

 

[wayne naughton]

While we're in apology mode, if i contributed in any way to turning this thread into a rant, i'm truly sorry. it certainly wasn't my intention.

wayne

 

[catem]

By the way, on a lighter note, anyone seen this great film?

It's coming to the Barbican (London) very soon. Kind of relevant, and well worth seeing!

Newsfront

 

[zinnanti]

I like this site a lot. Even when things get heated, they stay within the realm of reason.

I haven't seen that film. The description of it looks interesting. You'ld be surprised what you can get off of Netflixs on instant download. They have an incredible array of documentaries.

 

[catem]

Do see it if you can. My cousin was Assistant Director. He was involved in many films, including A Town Like Alice. Sadly he died far too young in 1982. But apart from my bias, it really is a classic.

 

[2F/2F]

I find your comments in this thread about the role and duties of a journalist totally at variance with my personal experience. I can't imagine to whom such views of journalism properly pertain. Maybe to an LA paparazzo? Or perhaps an overnight photography stringer with a police scanner? But I get the sense the OP works for a mainstream local publication.

Are you sure?

In your personal experience, what are your "comments...about the role and duties of a journalist", since they are "totally at variance" with mine? Here is the heart of what I said:

"Your job as a journalist is not to literally interpret every detail of an event. It is to experience the event in person, and figure out how best to tell others about it, using your available tools. One thing 90% of photographers just don't seem to get about photojournalists: THE FIRST JOB IS NOT PHOTOGRAPHY. It is JOURNALISM: to be a professional witness for the purpose of increasing the public information. The camera is your tool, and you are to use it to do this accurately, fairly, objectively, and in a timely and relevant fashion. (Notice that "perfectly", "coldly", and "literally" are not on the list.) Your camera is your equivalent of a writer's words. Just like a journalistic writer's main goal is not the creation of a literary piece for sake of a literary piece, the journalistic photographer's main goal is not the creation of a photograph for sake of a photograph. We all make decisions as to how to do these things; how to cover an event and tell the story in accordance with fundamental journalistic standards. We can't be PERFECTLY objective, but if we are good, we do our damned best to TRY, and also to work as a TEAM with the ENTIRE editorial staff who will end up touching the story; not make heavy-handed personal decisions that will sway the coverage away from proper standards. Our personal decisions while shooting should be made with the final goal and its required process in mind: the spread of important information, and the editing process that will follow our own work in the field. Are there shots to not take? Of course. You make those calls at the scene. Are there shots not to use? HA! YEAH! About 35 out of every 36 is trash. The editors make this call, and the better the shooter does his/her job, the better the editors can do theirs. But you do NOT make the decisions based on overwhelming individual emotions or opinions. It is called being a professional. It involves understanding that what you are doing is not about any individual, but about the community's need to have important information delivered in a timely, accurate, fair, balanced, and objective manner (and, at least in this country, the vigorous practice of the legal LIBERTY of journalists to perform this service)."

You were a professional journalist, yet your views as to to "roles and duties of a journalist [are] totally at variance" with this paragraph? You "can't imagine to whom such views of journalism properly pertain." Then you say anyone who believes what I wrote must be "an LA paparazzo" or "perhaps an overnight photography stringer with a police scanner."

What, pray tell, are the roles and duties of a journalist, then? How, by any stretch of industry standards, could they be "totally at variance" with the meat and potatoes of what I wrote in that paragraph? My statement is not an all-encompassing definition of journalism (nor did I set out to make such a definition), but I don't see anything in it with which a journalist's views should "properly" be "totally at variance".

 

[Stephen Frizza]

If it happens in public and you have a camera and the guts. Everything is fair game. The camera is a time machine. It stops time. I have stood and watched 2 separate occasions where people have been murdered in front of me. My only compulsion was SHOOT! The first murder I photographed. I got to keep the images and there are 2 images from that even in my APUG gallery. The second murder in action I photographed was sadly taken by the police and I did not get those images back. I feel if in your heart you wish not to display them then don't display. But if your are there and you have the camera and the images get created. then show the world events they may not normally see. im thankful for the likes of Weegee etc...

I think one should NEVER CENSOR and put down their camera because of a sensitive nature subject. In these situations it is vital to shoot. But Equally vital to have clear mind as to what the fate of these records are. trashy media for quick notoriety or special place of dignity in your film archives? but which ever you decide, the decision should not be to censor at the shooting stage. Always stop time!

 

[wayne naughton]

Do see it if you can. My cousin was Assistant Director. He was involved in many films, including A Town Like Alice. Sadly he died far too young in 1982. But apart from my bias, it really is a classic.

it's a great movie. well worth reviving.

wayne

 

[Ed Sukach]

If it happens in public and you have a camera and the guts. Everything is fair game. The camera is a time machine. It stops time. I have stood and watched 2 separate occasions where people have been murdered in front of me. My only compulsion was SHOOT!

That statement fired a decidedly unfavorable image of your ethical makeup in my mind, Stephen. I'm glad I took the time to investigate those images in your gallery. I had thought that you were adamantly and totally against any sort of moral judgement through the entire photographic process. That was modified, nearly polarly, when I read the description of "Murder Last Frame":

... "The young man was cut open in front of me and many others I couldn't think of anything I didn't do anything I escaped into my camera all I could do was shoot it..."

That is considerably different than the image of cold, heartless, unfeeling - and uncaring "mechanical man", doing everything behind the simple sheild of "I will do anything I want to - I have the RIGHT to..."

I think the difference between us is in WHEN the "self-censorship" takes place, pre or post. In my case, pre, I did NOT take the photograph; to even suggest that I was by firing the T32 Flash unit on my Olympus in the dead of night was to advertise that I did.

In yours ... well ... again, continuing from the gallery description: ... "There were 90 odd images to this event. But this is the only one I am ever going to show..."

I applaud that decision.