Photographing protests from within

[chuckroast]

If they are in a demonstration, then they have no right to privacy and can be freely photographed.

That is legally so, at least in the US (not so much in other places as was discussed here at some length a while back). But I don't think the OP was asking a legal question.

 

[Arthurwg]

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.

Normally, press credentials are requested or assigned by the news outlet. A photojournalist can call himself "freelance," operate with or without press credentials, and hope to sell his pictures to a new outlet.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

My 2 cents:

Photography in the service of socio-political cause is propaganda.


If you and your fellow travelers do not mind your work being seen that of a propagandist, by all means, do it. Just be well aware that this will absolutely undermine your credibility as a reliable and dispassionate source of information. This bothers some people, but not others. YMMV.

It's propaganda for you. Doesn't mean it's propaganda per se. It's for the viewer to chose.

I don't see it as propaganda. Someone is part of a movement. Decides to tell the story of this movement, and his engagement in it. Writes a book. It becomes an autobiographical account of this person's involvement in a movement, and an important historical record of the movement itself. Since it is autobiographical, we rightly assume that it will be biased in some way. That it's going to be this person's version of the events he both witness and was part of. In fact, it's precisely the reason why we would want to read that book. To get this person's side of the story.

It can be done by words. Or it can be done through photographic images. Absolutely no difference. Both say "This is my story, this is how I lived it, this is what I saw." The "I" is not propaganda. The "I" is essential to the storytelling. The "I" is precisely why we are interested in looking at the images. There's no expectation of journalistic neutrality just because a camera is used.

There's no greater example of all this than Koudelka's Prague invation in 68. To call these photo "propaganda", to call him a propagandist, would be an insult to the integrity of the man and the greatness of the photographer.

 

[chuckroast]

It's propaganda for you. Doesn't mean it's propaganda per se. It's for the viewer to chose.

I don't see it as propaganda. Someone is part of a movement. Decides to tell the story of this movement, and his engagement in it. Writes a book. It becomes an autobiographical account of this person's involvement in a movement, and an important historical record of the movement itself. Since it is autobiographical, we rightly assume that it will be biased in some way. That it's going to be this person's version of the events he both witness and was part of. In fact, it's precisely the reason why we would want to read that book. To get this person's side of the story.

It can be done by words. Or it can be done through photographic images. Absolutely no difference. Both say "This is my story, this is how I lived it, this is what I saw." The "I" is not propaganda. The "I" is essential to the storytelling. The "I" is precisely why we are interested in looking at the images. There's no expectation of journalistic neutrality just because a camera is used.

There's no greater example of all this than Koudelka's Prague invation in 68. To call these photo "propaganda", to call him a propagandist, would be an insult to the integrity of the man and the greatness of the photographer.

in my view, it's propaganda even if well intended. its intent is to curate the story in such a way as to change minds. this is the very definition of the word

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

His question is how to document the community without alienating it. Telling him to document something else seems to me like avoiding the question alltogether rather than answering it. What needs to be avoided is the alienation, not the documenting. There are many possible paths to the "how," which he will find through imagination and creativity.

His reportage will have to be biased and dishonest if he doesn't want to offend his group.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

its intent is to curate the story in such a way as to change minds.

Problem is you don't know, and can't tell, if it's curated in such a way as to change minds.

OP can take a photo of the people in the protest. Right next to OP is a photojournalist taking a photo of the same people, from about the same angle. You can't tell the difference. Intent is not obvious in photography. That's just not how photography works.

To make it propaganda you have to make intent obvious, artistically and aesthetically — think Leni Riefenstahl in Olympia, or Soviet propaganda poster extolling the virtues of heroic patriotism —, and you have to be intentionally misleading. That is the definition of the word.

His reportage will have to be biased and dishonest if he doesn't want to offend his group.

Alan, I will say it one last time. Having a bias does not mean being dishonest. Everybody is biased. It's part of human nature. That does not mean one can't commit the truth. It's a question of personal ethics.

Of course the OP could make his photos propaganda. That would have to be his intent. To find a way to glorify the cause through artistic and aesthetic means. Nothing says that's what he wants to do. And it would be unfair, unjust to him to doubt his commitment to the truth. Not the whole truth — he stated very clearly that that's part of his dilemma. But the truth nevertheless:´what he saw, honestly and fairly documented through a visual medium.

 

[reddesert]

There are different modes to document events with photographs (or video, or words). You can be, for example, an advocate, a documentarian, or a journalist. These roles overlap and there are not clear distinctions, but they are not all the same thing. (To give an example, I think a lot of Gordon Parks's well known work is documentary, but not newspaper-journalist dispassionate.) Documentarians ("documentary makers" who might work in stills or words, as well as movies) and newspaper reporters have generally different standards for objectivity and independence from the source, but they are both engaged in kinds of reportage. Saying that everything that doesn't meet a particular standard of reporting is propaganda, is often used to discount things that make us uncomfortable.

 

[chuckroast]

There are different modes to document events with photographs (or video, or words). You can be, for example, an advocate, a documentarian, or a journalist. These roles overlap and there are not clear distinctions, but they are not all the same thing. (To give an example, I think a lot of Gordon Parks's well known work is documentary, but not newspaper-journalist dispassionate.) Documentarians ("documentary makers" who might work in stills or words, as well as movies) and newspaper reporters have generally different standards for objectivity and independence from the source, but they are both engaged in kinds of reportage. Saying that everything that doesn't meet a particular standard of reporting is propaganda, is often used to discount things that make us uncomfortable.

More usually, what I see is propaganda in drag as reporting. I am entirely fine with artists of any kind editorializing via their art, but they should be honest about it.

You see particularly trenchant examples of this in the so-called "news" outlets. What you see/hear/read about the exact same story varies wildly based on the ideological biases of the reporting agent.

The danger is that people begin to self select their information sources based on their own preferences thinking that they're getting the "real" story, when in reality, they are incrementally not hearing any alternative viewpoints.

This is why I strongly prefer that artists, journalists, and other media producers be open and candid about their own biases. It helps to understand their work better and fosters a more 360 view of culture, art, and contemporary events. I would argue that not doing this is fundamentally dishonest.

 

[koraks]

What you see/hear/read about the exact same story varies wildly based on the ideological biases of the reporting agent.

Yes, that's what humans do. We're a funny lot, aren't we?
To make matters worse, LLM's ("AI") have also been demonstrated to have clear biases. Looks like machines aren't doing much better than us, either.
Perhaps we should relabel CNN into CPN.

This is why I strongly prefer that artists, journalists, and other media producers be open and candid about their own biases.

Right, so now that we've established that and you're up to speed with where this thread started out, we can perhaps go back to the questions asked by @Timo Schön . After all, he said this:

If you are open about and willing to accept the fact that your way of documenting is biased by your opinions

which suggests you guys are on the same page, so perhaps we can now leave (again) square one.

 

[logan2z]

To make matters worse, LLM's ("AI") have also been demonstrated to have clear biases. Looks like machines aren't doing much better than us, either.

Well, they've been trained on human-created data sources so they didn't stand much of a chance

 

[koraks]

Well, they've been trained on human-created data sources so they didn't stand much of a chance

I bet you a good bottle of wine that a truly objective (machine) reporter wouldn't stand much of a chance in the marketplace. "This good-for-nothing journalist doesn't know what's up, what the h*** is wrong with this guy, f*** woke-a** media!"

 

[logan2z]

I bet you a good bottle of wine that a truly objective (machine) reporter wouldn't stand much of a chance in the marketplace. "This good-for-nothing journalist doesn't know what's up, what the h*** is wrong with this guy, f*** woke-a** media!"

So true

 

[Richard Man]

I photographed Wall St and Occupy Oakland briefly back in the days. When there were protests in Hong Kong, I wished (and not wished) to be there. Good thing on HK, as the government uses photos from the protests to arrest people. All photos are biased. These are realities, yet not.

ccupy

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Problem is you don't know, and can't tell, if it's curated in such a way as to change minds.

OP can take a photo of the people in the protest. Right next to OP is a photojournalist taking a photo of the same people, from about the same angle. You can't tell the difference. Intent is not obvious in photography. That's just not how photography works.

To make it propaganda you have to make intent obvious, artistically and aesthetically — think Leni Riefenstahl in Olympia, or Soviet propaganda poster extolling the virtues of heroic patriotism —, and you have to be intentionally misleading. That is the definition of the word.




Alan, I will say it one last time. Having a bias does not mean being dishonest. Everybody is biased. It's part of human nature. That does not mean one can't commit the truth. It's a question of personal ethics.

Of course the OP could make his photos propaganda. That would have to be his intent. To find a way to glorify the cause through artistic and aesthetic means. Nothing says that's what he wants to do. And it would be unfair, unjust to him to doubt his commitment to the truth. Not the whole truth — he stated very clearly that that's part of his dilemma. But the truth nevertheless:´what he saw, honestly and fairly documented through a visual medium.

A distinction without a difference. The OP stated he did not want to offend his group with negative reporting about them. So that means he's being dishonest in the way he's presenting the event. He's only showing the side that does not show his group's warts. That's dishonest. Biased. Call it what you want.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

A distinction without a difference. The OP stated he did not want to offend his group with negative reporting about them. So that means he's being dishonest in the way he's presenting the event. He's only showing the side that does not show his group's warts. That's dishonest. Biased. Call it what you want.

Alan, we're going in circles. Let's agree to disagree. You gave the OP your opinion, I gave him mine. It's now up to the OP — if he's still following this thread — to decide which advice he wishes to follow.