Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/09/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] I really disagree with this policy
From: ahgraves at prodigy.net (Allen Graves)
Date: Thu Sep 8 16:44:25 2005
References: <59CE9124-7A7B-4058-AAF9-49F9445B610D@earthlink.net> <22c93b29050905225413f3d127@mail.gmail.com> <rh7sh156g2nv8ia7pmm1qgquml9ubeofm5@4ax.com> <9b678e05090617241a6fe335@mail.gmail.com> <04b33a56b47dac727518b68331271055@paulhardycarter.com> <BDCB7D4B-754E-4DFA-9A09-6174CAF6E0D2@earthlink.net> <004901c5b408$81f71980$1ae76c18@ted> <0DAD2561-751B-41F4-824C-C2B91CF45469@earthlink.net> <002101c5b437$5c8fdc20$1ae76c18@ted> <13e804581f97983d9596eba657e53add@pipeline.com> <000b01c5b48b$7b1fc2a0$1ae76c18@ted> <EEBF9390-9C1C-4FAA-9ABD-28144A386472@cox.net> <4320B7F4.8040405@waltjohnson.com>

Did they think that there is medically indicated cosmetic surgery ? 
(I don't mean plastic or reconstructive surgery).

I know, they'll say that us infectious disease docs are just jealous 
'cause we don't have a gimmick.

I can tell you that in the Southeast, it's a lot easier to get a 
facelift than it is to get into an internist as a new patient.
Allen




>Steve:
>
>You mean there are doctors who do surgery just to make payments on 
>their wives' BMW's ? For shame. If I'd have said such someone (most 
>likely Paul) would have called me cynical. :-P
>
>walt
>
>Steve Barbour wrote:
>
>>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
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Leica Users Group.
>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

In reply to: Message from wooderson at gmail.com (Matt Powell) ([Leica] I really disagree with this policy)
Message from ericm at pobox.com (Eric) ([Leica] I really disagree with this policy)
Message from don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] I really disagree with this policy)
Message from paul at paulhardycarter.com (Paul) ([Leica] I really disagree with this policy)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] I really disagree with this policy)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] I really disagree with this policy)
Message from neilsimages at pipeline.com (Neil Schneider) ([Leica] I really disagree with this policy)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] I really disagree with this policy)
Message from kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] I really disagree with this policy)
Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] I really disagree with this policy)