Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/09/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]somehow I keep following this thread and thinking of the difference between those surgeons who do surgery to save lives, and those surgeons who do unnecessary surgery... Steve On Sep 8, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Ted Grant wrote: > Neil Schneider offered: > >>> You have to give the media credit for getting the story and the >>> heart >>> > wrenching images out. We may not always do it perfectly (and you > are in > that "we") But we do work at our jobs with compassion also.<<< > > G'day Neil, > Well yes the story is beyond the imagination of most and it should > be covered. But the media of today have evolved into a howling pack > of "images first and who cares! Get them no matter who suffers, but > get them!" > > However, read my lips carefully... "NOT ALL OF THEM" and you are > included in "not all of them." However when one caught FOX TV and > CNN there main focus, as always, is on the grimest material they > can find. The stills shooters, if let in enmass would be like an > invasion of cockroaches scurrying around looking for their visuals > flashing in the faces of those most suffering. > > And yes many newsphotographers do show compassion for subject and > use care in photographing suffering souls. But there are more and > more of the "worst rat-pack" types evolving partially because the > digital era has made it possible for these types to become part of > the previously clean honourable profession as a newsphotograher. > > When it was "film only" we'd shoot, know how to soup film, make > prints in the bathroom of a hotel and know how to operate wire > photo machines. And with that, it eliminated the mental midgets of > today who because they have a digital exposing machine of some > kind, claim to be "media." And with many of these people it's > more a "thrill of the kill" in getting some sort of exposure and > having it published, than anything to do with the honour of being a > news photographer with compassion. > > >>>> Gosh Ted, so beautifully laid out with such calm reasoning. Perhaps >>>> >> FEMA should have just let you in there with your super >> quiet Leicas, sans flash, for it looks like you might be the only >> one to shoot such a sensitive story.<<< >> > > Unfortunately good sir I think you maybe a tad facitious, as there > are many far better skilled than I at that kind of subject. > > >> Sounds like you don't give any credit to anyone else for knowing >> how to handle a situation like this except experienced >> photojournalists like yourself.. Shame on you for such an elitist >> attitude, <<< >> > > Now Neil you know better than that, as I've had my ass shot off on > more occasions than I'd care to admit, but that's all part of being > a news-photographer amidst ones competitors. Goes with the > territory. However, in this case a photojournalist with experince > would be far better, or lets say should be, than the cell phone-p&s > digi camera pack . > > >>> and shame on >>> >> government agencies who try to control what the rest of the world >> is entitled to see. Yes I said entitled. A tragedy of this >> magnitude, which was most likely caused by government cutbacks, >> and is now trying to be hidden from public scrutiny by that same >> government, should be exploited to its fullest.<<< >> > > Quite right, it shouldn't have been covered up if that was and is > the case. > > >> Why do you suppose there are so many photojournalists from >> around the world there, as you say "like a battery of paparazzi". >> Think they're just there for the body pictures........or could it >> be that >> there is so many world wide media organizations now that its >> inevitable when anything major happens.<<<<<< >> > > Well it's logical they are there in such huge numbers because of > the magnitude of the disaster. And the advent of the big stock > agencies now prodcing a great deal of photography to out market the > general wire news services. > > >> Do you like controlled, government embedding, with censors >> approving every image to its sensitivity values.<< >> > > Well embedding if you like began in seriousness for the Iraqi > invastion so it could be controlled. And I do not agree with > governemnt censorship at any time of any subject. > > >> Do you really believe the US President is forbidding the caskets >> of dead soldiers to be photographed to spare the families, or to >> spare >> his own image. Everyone remembers Viet Nam and how the press >> "lost" that war for the US.<<,, >> > > This is a subject as a non-American I am not at liberty to comment on. > > >> And those poor souls trapped in the Superdome simply because they >> didn't have the means to leave the city. Do you really believe that >> they don't want to vent their anger over this, to the first camera >> or reporter they see. Sure, there were pictures of unidentified >> bodies in the arena.<<<<<, >> > > Sure they should vent their anger or whatever comment they wish to > make as freely as they can. But that has nothing to do with still > photgraphers and we're discussing photography and photographers. > > >> It showed the deplorable condition these people were kept under, >> the lack of food, water, medical care. I wonder what would of >> happened if >> these images were never shown. How many more bodies would have >> been piled up. Babies, dead from dehydration in their mothers >> arms.<<<< >> > > >> You have to give the media credit for getting the story and the >> heart wrenching images out. We may not always do it perfectly (and >> you are in that "we") But we do work at our jobs with compassion >> also.<<<< >> > > We media people generally manage to circumvent " governement > control " if you like some way or other, not always as fast as we'd > like. But what many government bureaucrats never learn is... "the > tougher they try to control the media, the tougher we become at > getting the story. If for no other reason than doing an end run > around them to see what they're hiding or didn't do correctly." > > But in some cases control is necessary. The coverage in the > Superedome could have been done so simply with care and compassion > on a "pool" basis. Simply using the most experinced photographer or > two and TV crew to shoot inside. Then whatever is shot belongs to all. > > However, that may not work in your country as the media would end > up fighting amongst themselves with court orders etc to decide whom > was selected to shoot. Then by the time the company lawyers and > court got finished, NO would've been re-built! Still no pictures! > > ted > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >