Re: [Leica] Photographers named in Diana event

[dannyg1 <dannyg1@IDT.NET>]

Eric,

> First of all, "press cards" are mere pieces of paper. They mean nothing.
> Journalists are not journalists because they are sanctioned by a government
> body. 

In this day/age of "pool" coverage, press cards are the first requirement of being 
considered for access. It's simplistic to say that journalists aren't government 
sanctioned. In this city and for the most part, that's either changing or has changed.

> I have no disdain at all for these people in particular, if they are
> photojournalists just making some extra cash so they can continue to pursue
> their true "callings." What I object to are the papparazzi, those who are
> not journalists, but celebrity photographers who like the two that drove
> Arnold Scharzzenegger off the road, make their money using unethical,
> intrusive methods that go beyond human decency. I don't know about the guys
> who were near Diana that night. That's not the point. 

I don't pretend to know the details of the Arnold off the road case and can't 
comment on the actions of those two photographers. By your own example though, 
you've been harrassed and almost arrested while taking photos, correct? Fact of the 
matter is that many of the people who are charged with 'security' use violence, 
threat and harrassment as everyday tools in their dealings with the press (in 
whatever form). Under imposed conditions like that, it's not surprising that the 
stakes rise. As you know, editors want their pictures and do not take sorry for an 
acceptable answer. I'm glad to hear that you won't go to the extreme lengths but 
seperating yourself from the reality that many editors _will impose their will doesn't 
serve to erase the public perception of 'paparazzo', in reference to you (or me).

> this thread any more, but I had to object to your characterization I made
> of freelancers.

My point was that it's not possible to make a distinction the lay-person can 
understand between a 'celebrity photog', a photojournalist, a street fashion 
photographer or a candid photographer. What the public is demanding is that every 
photographer only shoot with expressed 'permission'. It's a power struggle directed 
towards people they see as stealing something they own. IMO, the distinction stops 
there.

I doubt that Bruce Davidson could produce 'Subway' now. Robert Frank would be 
risking his life to make 'The Americans". Both Cartier Bresson and Helen Levitt 
might be mistaken for a child molester were they to make random photos of 
children that they're famous for. 

We need to publicize the reality of what our business is and put a leash on the way 
that editors demand results in order to change the mentality that permits the Arnold 
thing to happen. The public will always want the photos but it's up to the editors to 
temper the ways in which those demands are met. 

There used to be a respectful image of photographers, created by many dying in war 
only to bring the story back for us. Losing that nobility wholesale by deferring to 
the unfair anger directed towards these 'freelance papparazzo' is a crime in my 
mind. 

Photographers are also not peons available for abuse on demand. It seems everyone 
(editors, public, security, police and government) has to come to grips with that.


Danny Gonzalez