Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/09/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Of course editors should be making the decisions, not military censors - Hi, Walt! :-) - but Paul is dead-on right that anything shot by military photographers are going to be cleared by military censors. Why do you think they call them 'military photographers?' As to the discussion about 'caring,' invasion of privacy, etc. etc. - If photo journalists - and I do NOT consider celebrity paparazzi 'photo journalists - and reporters stop to worry about whether their presence, and doing their job, may be 'hurtful' or 'upsetting' to those they are photographing and covering, we will no longer have any real news coverage. No, being a news photographer or reporter is not for the faint of heart. Yes, one should try to be as respectful as possible when photographing or reporting the kind of situation we're witnessing in NO - or Iraq, or Sudan, or anywhere else where people suffering. But if one is going to do one's job, then one has to get that photo, or story. Period. I often tell my students that as a reporter - or for that matter as a news photographer - one is refereeing a constant wrestling match between one's self as a professional, and one's self as a person. And as an example I tell the story of having interviewed a chief of high-risk obstetrics for a long feature piece I was doing on a 34-year-old physician who died in childbirth. The doc I was interviewing had been a close friend of the dead woman, and had cared for her in the last, horrible, 18 hours of her life. In the middle of the interview this big, strapping guy leaned over onto his crossed arms on his desk and wept. Well, the human side of me wanted to be any place but where I was; I absolutely did not want to be witnessing this poor guy's pain, and I didn't want to be adding to it. But the reporter side of me was ecstatic, and couldn't wait to get back and tell my editor about this bit of color for the story. Did I write about the incident? Of course. Was the doc upset that I did - absolutely not; he loved the story, which told in great detail of the ultimately futile struggle to save the patient's life. On 9/8/05 10:08 AM, "Neil Schneider" <neilsimages@pipeline.com> wrote: > > On Sep 8, 2005, at 9:45 AM, Paul wrote: > >> On 8 Sep 2005, at 14:02, Neil Schneider wrote: >> >>> The AP moved photos yesterday shot by military photographers, with a >>> note that they had been cleared by the military for release...the >>> same kind of censor clearance note one has seen on photos moved from >>> war zones. >> >> Hardly surprising. These photographers are soldiers doing a job - do >> you expect them to release pictures without going through channels? >> >> P. >> >> ******* >> Paul Hardy Carter >> > > Don't you think the respective news editors should be the ones to > decide what's acceptable to publish, and not the government. > Do you have any idea what you are advocating when you say "go through > channels". > I don't really think you want to see government censorship at work > here. Its not the society we live in for reports of a hurricane & > flood. > This is not a national security issue to my knowledge. > The soldiers job there is to keep order, and search for bodies. Not to > be photo suppliers for the media. > Its perfectly fine for their photo units to document for the military > archives, not distribute to media where it may be likely > they are forbidding the media access. That still remains to be seen > though. > > Neil > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information