[Leica] I really disagree with this policy

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

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