Photojournalists won't be allowed to capture the handing over of the articles of impeachment

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by Hector Javkin, Jan 15, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. It seems the Senate won't allow still photographers in, only a single video camera, and no audio recordings.

    (Link to dpreview article)

    Mod Note:

    I have moved this to "Casual Photo Conversations".

    Obviously the topic is one which might collect responses more "political" in content than "photography" in content, it would be appreciated if we could keep on the "photography" side of the fence.

    Thanks,

    William
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2020
  2. Apparently, the Emperor of the US does not wish it to be recorded.
     
    samstevens likes this.
  3. The constant clatter of motor drives would drive anyone nuts eventually. All photojournalists should be required to use Leicas. The event was covered on a dozen channels simultaneously so we didn't miss anything.
     
  4. I'm not saying we did, but restricting access like this means we very well could be missing different perspectives. No one perspective is THE perspective or the most objective perspective. I always want more than one journalist or photojournalist covering any important story.
     
    Dave Luttmann likes this.
  5. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

  6. The constant clatter of motor drives

    Huh? No film cameras these days. Some clicking from flapping mirrors. They could just ban flash rather than ban photogs. It's a familiar pattern with this Senate though.
     
  7. There must have been a hundred cell phone cameras at work in that room.
     
  8. Folks with cell phones don't replace officially-sanctioned photojournalists ... for a reason. Look, citizen cell phone use can be a very good thing and has been vital in some recent political situations. But that doesn't change the fact that suppressing official press access to the ongoing activities of the government is repressive and dangerous. I don't want to rely for my news on Joe the Plumber with a cell phone. I want it coming from credentialed sources who have experience and expertise in what they do.
     
    Sanford likes this.
  9. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Folks with cell phones won't get in. What part of Magnetometers don't you understand? Blame it on whoever you care to, the Sergeant at arms and staff made the decision.
     
  10. Thanks. We will. Many of us can read between the lines and don’t always take political “security” decisions at face value. We’re more than aware that “security” is often used as a repressive measure.
     
  11. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    :rolleyes: Whatever.
     
  12. That’s one response. Another would be to learn history.

    I don’t want to get in trouble so I’ll say no more on the subject.
     
    Robin Smith likes this.
  13. Restricting photography has been common for years, both journalists and the average amateur. I’ve been kicked out of a few events as a news photographer for no good reason I could see but no one should be surprised at today. Security concerns?Nonsense. None of the politicians on either side want to take any chances with their image after so much crap has bubbled out to the surface. It’s that simple.
    Rick H.
     
    orsetto and Moving On like this.
  14. Video and a full transcript records History.
    Photo ops for propagandists for political ads do not impress me.
    While it offends the photographer in me personally, the idea that it somehow is part of a plot to deceive the public is laughable.
    The attempt to transition from the political circus theater to serious consideration is appreciated by the voter in me.
    Photo journalists edit their work for political purposes all the time.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
    orsetto likes this.
  15. Review the difference between “repression” and suppression .....
    It is obvious the first isn’t applicable at all, by definition.
    The second isn’t either given the obvious video record and transcript.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
  16. Critically incorrect.
    The President was elected.
    Emperors are not.
    On the second point, that President Trump does not wish to be recorded, is absurdly laughable given a rather extensive record.

    Prohibiting photographs certainly does not prevent anything from being recorded.
     
  17. Thanks for the invitation. As someone who appreciates subtle differences in words, I like reminding myself of or discovering nuances of meaning.

    Looking "suppress" and "repress" up in the same dictionary, I found ...

    suppress: to put down by authority or force; to keep from public knowledge

    repress: to put down by force; to hold in by self control; to exclude from consciousness; to prevent the natural or normal expression of

    They're pretty similar, though "repress" can have some added meaning as in 1) "repressed memory", often due to trauma, or 2) being repressed, for instance sexually or in personality.

    On balance, I'd say "suppressive" would have been a better choice on my part, though "repressive" seems ok and adequate if not quite as particular or direct. And, though I do make an effort to communicate with the right nuance and use language as communicatively as possible, I also appreciate that my meaning was probably understood by most readers. And meaning is just as much a function of someone understanding you as it is the best dictionary definition of a word. I will, after this discussion, likely use "suppress" in this situation and I'm sorry for any confusion my use, instead, of "repress" may have caused anyone.

    I often offer friends and family grammatical advice. I was a typesetter by trade and did a lot of proofing and can't help but pay a lot of attention to spelling and grammar mistakes as well as typos and even bad kerning (!), sometimes to the point of obsession. So I understand when someone else questions a word, phrase, or construction I use and am always grateful and willing to refine my own use of language.

    Thanks again.
     
    Robin Smith, Gup and Moving On like this.
  18. Thank you.
    I appreciate your gracious and informed reply.

    Additionally, we have all seen what photographers do with political “visual gaff photography” to lampoon.
    And it has its place.
    I enjoy it.
    But I don’t expect I’ll miss much in this instance.
     
  19. So, political bickering is now OK on PN?
     
  20. These folks are in their seventies. You just can't be continuously popping off flash guns and making that motor drive sound, they will freeze up!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page