Obviously I am a political person and count myself as member of the community I am protesting with, so I don't want me taking pictures endangering or harming the people I am with.
Now the way I would take pictures at these events would probably align with the rules (since I care for the community) but I don't know how to show that while working protests, just taking pictures of the "opposing side" also doesn't do justice to the act of documenting political tensions and also brings harder bias and a personal kind of danger with it.
What are those rules? I've been shooting protests for a year or two and have only once been afraid to photograph (at a neo-nazi one last year). I still took pictures.I've been on many protests over the last years, still I rarely take pictures there because I am aware of the "rules" that are established in a lot of different protest communitities.
If you are open about and willing to accept the fact that your way of documenting is biased by your opinions, how do you document the issues you care for without alienation from the community you care for. Especially when the consequences of people taking pictures is a valid concern that I share myself.
I don't know, maybe this is a silly question and the best answer would probably be somewhere between communication with the people being concerned with a photographer present and clearly showing in some way that you count yourself as part of the movement.
Decide if you are a journalist or a protestor. Don't take photographs at events you are part of that your community doesn;t want you to photograph. Become a journalist at other protests you; 're not involved in.
Alan, you can't decide to be a journalist or not. Journalism is a trade, just like airline pilot, plumber or physicist. To be a journalist mean studying journalism, getting a diploma, working for one form of media or another. Once that is done, you are submitted to certain ethical rules imposed by the media you work for.
OP is not a journalist, can't decide to be one. OP is free to document whatever he wants, the way he wants to. Whether he is part of it or not is totally irrelevant. More importantly, he is free to impose upon himself his own ethical rules, or forego ethics all together. The only thing important to him is his relationship to the truth of what is happening in front of his lens and how he choses to document it.
Photography is not journalism. Photojournalism is journalism. Journalism is reporting. Photography is documenting. Not the same thing. And documenting something you are part of is often more powerful, and meaningful, than reporting on something you are not.
I mentioned Gordon Parks. On a totally different register, Nan Goldin comes to mind as a good example of this. There are many more.
Alan, you can't decide to be a journalist or not. Journalism is a trade, just like airline pilot, plumber or physicist. To be a journalist mean studying journalism, getting a diploma, working for one form of media or another. Once that is done, you are submitted to certain ethical rules imposed by the media you work for.
OP is not a journalist, can't decide to be one. OP is free to document whatever he wants, the way he wants to. Whether he is part of it or not is totally irrelevant. More importantly, he is free to impose upon himself his own ethical rules, or forego ethics all together. The only thing important to him is his relationship to the truth of what is happening in front of his lens and how he choses to document it.
Photography is not journalism. Photojournalism is journalism. Journalism is reporting. Photography is documenting. Not the same thing. And documenting something you are part of is often more powerful, and meaningful, than reporting on something you are not.
I mentioned Gordon Parks. On a totally different register, Nan Goldin comes to mind as a good example of this. There are many more.
The OP claimed he was taking pictures for documentary and journalistic reasons. If so, he'd be better off shooting political events he's not personally involved in. They would be less biased and more believable.
OP Quote: " Still as a photography enthusiast with passion for documentary and journalism, maybe some wiser ones have insights and can help me with the question I'm battling with."
This is not supposed to be a political post/thread
Now that's settled, I hope to find some answers to my questions. I've been on many protests over the last years, still I rarely take pictures there because I am aware of the "rules" that are established in a lot of different protest communitities. Not only do I know the rules, I am also painfully aware of the threat that pictures taken at protests can mean to the people in the pictures and therefore understand the skepticism on journalists.
Obviously I am a political person and count myself as member of the community I am protesting with, so I don't want me taking pictures endangering or harming the people I am with.
Now the way I would take pictures at these events would probably align with the rules (since I care for the community) but I don't know how to show that while working protests, just taking pictures of the "opposing side" also doesn't do justice to the act of documenting political tensions and also brings harder bias and a personal kind of danger with it.
I guess the question is: If you are open about and willing to accept the fact that your way of documenting is biased by your opinions, how do you document the issues you care for without alienation from the community you care for. Especially when the consequences of people taking pictures is a valid concern that I share myself.
I don't know, maybe this is a silly question and the best answer would probably be somewhere between communication with the people being concerned with a photographer present and clearly showing in some way that you count yourself as part of the movement. Still as a photography enthusiast with passion for documentary and journalism, maybe some wiser ones have insights and can help me with the question I'm battling with.
Cheers, I hope this is relevant and correctly placed
It seems that to be a journalist at a protest or elsewhere, citizen-journalist or educated/trained journalist, one criteria would be a distribution mechanism and/or audience. Otherwise one would be a documentary photographer taking photographs.
Alan, he does not say, nor claim, he is taking pictures for journalistic reasons. He says, as you quote, that he has "a passion for documentary and journalism." Not the same thing. Taking pictures for journalistic reasons would mean he's been hired by a media to document the protests and/or protesters. It would mean doing it as a journalist, not as someone who is documenting it.
I also have a passion for journalism. I work for a media. I've studied journalism. I and do document a lot of things as a photographer. I may approach them in a journalistic fashion. But that neither makes me a journalist nor does it make my photographic work journalism.
That said, even if he was hired by a media to document the protest and it's protesters, it would not be a problem if he is part of the movement if the media asks him to document it as a participant and, more importantly, if there is full disclosure to the public that the person doing the documenting is a participant. The basic journalistic principle here is not neutrality (it rarely is) but transparency.
Legacy media is all but dead.Anyone can be a journalist. See my last post. You can hire yourself to create your own web page as many have done. This is why regular media is dying and pro photographers can't get work. Good luck selling your photo essays to regular media. People are getting their news from social media, much of it independent.
I agree with your point about transparency if you are taking picture essays as part of group. Unfortunately, major media is biased but not transparent. It's quite a mess. But I better stop here before I;m sent into the corner again for getting too political.
Calling yourself a journalist won't necessarily get you identified as one.
If you are looking for special access granted only to recognized journalists, you will have to have more than a vest with "press" and a printed card in your wallet.
Legacy media is all but dead.
More people watch Joe Rogan and Jimmy Dore than all of CNN, MSNDC, FOX, Etc etc etc
Anyone can be a journalist.
If you are open about and willing to accept the fact that your way of documenting is biased by your opinions, how do you document the issues you care for without alienation from the community you care for.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?