To photog or not to photog...

Last Thursday (Aug 31), I was one of the 1800 arrested during the RNC

protests. While waiting for the cops to process everyone before being

loaded up into the bus for transport to pier 57, we were told to stand

against the wall of the store we were arrested in front of. A crowd

of about 25 photographers developed. Some seemed like press and some

probably amateurs like me and some just passing by & happened to have

a cell phone camera or small digital. The crowd changed, but the

numbers of photogs didn't really diminish for the hour we were

standing out there. While I wanted to be photographed at that moment,

there were a few girls who were very young (18?) and were embarrassed

and didn't want to be photographed. They asked the photogs to stop &

some did, but most didn't. They ended up standing behind me (I am

large, standing at 6 ft & currently overweight). Later on the next

day while being bussed in a DOC bus to Central Booking, we were

standing idle waiting for entry into the downtown jail. Two photogs

realized we were protestors & started taking pictures, moving close to

get our faces through the cages on the windows. At this point none of

us wanted to be photographed and begged the guard to tell the guy (who

was on the jail property) to stop. He did, but the photog didn't &

only attracted a few more photogs (funny how they appear out of thin

air! Do we really do that?). We yelled for him to stop & of course

he didn't. Once he was done, he had the nerve enough to flash the

peace sign at us. After about 30 minutes, we finally moved through

the gate & out of public view.

<p>

Anyways... Before this happened, if I had not been an arrestee & was

walking down the street & saw a line of people being arrested, I'd

have been photographing too. I think I would stop if I was asked to

by the arrestees in the same situation. Now, I am not really sure how

I would respond having been on the other side of the lens. Part of me

likes to believe I would still photog because it is important to

record such events and I mean no ill will. Part of me remembers those

girls & how upset & afraid they were & how the photogs only multiplied

their anxiety. I remember how I didn't want to be photographed in the

DOC bus and how our pleading was ignored. Part of me remembers all of

that & says I'll pass the situation up or at least call out asking if

its OK first. I guess I am just curious as to what you would do &

why? Not looking to deliver an ethics lesson or any such thing. I am

simply curious as to how others would or did approach a similar situation.

<p>

Also, while I was their mainly as a protestor & not photographing

much, many photographers were picked up in the arrests:

<p>

<a

href="http://www.nynewsday.com/search/nyc-arre0904,0,6454320.story">http://www.nynewsday.com/search/nyc-arre0904,0,6454320.story</a>

<p>

Would like some opinions on this as well.

to the first part...if it was on public property, I would take pictures. That's my only legal guideline, and thats the only one that matters in this case. However, having said that, my personal normal mode of shooting "events" is not to shoot the people in the lime light. I tend to shoot the onlookers........in this case it would more than likely have been the cops, other photographers and general bystanders that I would have been shooting. Maybe one "event" shot of the detained, but that would have been it.

 

As for the news story...assuming it is true.....the police went way too far past their legal limits....IMHO.

btw - how you doing after all that?

I was there, it was true. I was in with one of the women (the freelancer) quoted in that article. It was all very pre-epmtive & the city was under a state similar to martial law at the time. I cannot comment firsthand much as a photographer as I spent very little time photographing. My cameras & film were never marked as evidence because I didn't take any photos of my arresting officers. However, those who were arrested while photographing had their equipment listed as evidence (harder to get back) and when their equipment was returned, their loaded film was exposed & video was erased (info is from firsthand reports). One photog who was in with me managed to hide her CF card for a while, only to have it confiscated later. Don't know if the data was erased or not. She was also a freelancer who sold to major newspapers.

I have some nerve damage on my wrists from being in too tight plasticuffs for 4 hours & am having respitory probs after over 12 hours in pier 57, laying on dried oil & chems. I spent a total of 46 hours locked up... and all for a Disorderly Conduct charge which is isn't even a misdemeanor (its a violation, equal to a speeding ticket). I am pleading not guilty as I was within the boundries of the law & thats all I can say about what lead to my actual arrest. 6 years ago I had my eye socket shattered & the person who did that was found guilty of 2nd degree assault. He served less time in jail than I did. I am pissed. I am suing (many class actions already filed).

<p>

As far as the photog part is concerned. I hear ya about photographing the perimeter stuff. I might use that as a compromise in the future if I see a similar situation.

The simple to the question.

 

Life's not fair and when you go out with the intent of becoming a news story, expect to be photographed.

I'd agree with you when it comes to protesting, but none of us planned on getting arrested as we were doing nothing illegal. I didn't mind being photographed while I was standing there & actually hoped that some press photog witnessed what happened & was photographing, but those girls didn't bank on being arrested either. The behavior of the 1 photog hounding our DOC bus also turned my stomach. He even went so far as to mock us. Its these things that cause me to pause. I myself am still very up in the air over it, but being arrested wasn't in the plan. One guy who got swept up with us simply stopped to ask me directions on how to get somewhere.

Guess we should also tell those who live in the same conditions I experienced on a daily basis that "life's not fair".

i don't mean to sound harsh or insensitive, but you had it coming. the public was

warned about how intense the security will be and if you ignore that and put yourself

into that situation, i'm sorry but i think you deserved it. if i was there and got

arrested, handcuffed, or even beaten, that would be all my fault. no one else to

blame cause i chose to do it on my own free will after knowing that there will be no

tolerance for disturbance. in my opinion, i don't think the law enforcement went

overboard because, come on, many hates the guy or the party so they had to do

eveything in their power to keep possible threats low.

 

regarding the photographers. i myself will shoot away too. people who protest

knows the risk and they knew getting arrested is one of them. it's not the

photographers job to worry about if they are going to upset them or hurt anyones

feelings. it's their job or hobby to do what they like or told to do. yeah, i will stop if

you were waiting in line for, lets say, a movie or something cause it's not news

worthy. but events, such as a protest, it's all fair game.

I don't have the killer instinct to get the story at all costs. Whenever someone requests I not photograph them, no matter what the circumstances, I desist. If I have any respect for the subject, which I must in order to be called to photograph it, how can I ignore a direct request?<BR><BR>

I'm sorry about the plasticuffs and your having to sit in the chemicals. They just wanted you off the streets. I think they figure those they arrested were on the "front" and to get them off the streets until the convention adjourned was the best way to keep things relatively quiet. Will they try to fine you now as well as your time served? After all this Bush is 7 points ahead of Kerry and time is running out. I think we are gonna loose this one. If we do I am going to be a little disgusted in my fellow Americans. I'm sure they feel the same about me. "Everyone go to your corners and come out fighting when the bell rings."

Well, Heather, I would take the pix regardless. If you become a news story then you'll get photographed. Ultimately those pix are historical documents. Guess I'm just cold-hearted but the scared kids who didn't expect to be arrested may be the best picture you can get....

 

Note this is different from the assumption that you intended to become a news story and therefore deserve to be photographed, which is course is a kind of just-desserts fallacy.

 

The photog who mocks you is out of line. He's either belying the fiction of a neutral press, or worse attempting to provoke a reaction so he can get a more interesting (or politically charged) photo. Nothing like getting the "arrested protester" flipping the bird to the camera (and therefore the readership) to introduce bias....

It's news - how could there be any expectation of not being photographed?

Heather wrote<p>

 

<i>I'd agree with you when it comes to protesting, but none of us planned on getting arrested as we were doing nothing illegal.</i><p>

 

There was a reason the sweep was made, for what ever reason, good/bad/right or wrong. Either which way, the protest was the news story and part of the news story is the arrest proceedure and those arrested. The photog is there to get the story in photojournalistic style.<p>

 

<i>I didn't mind being photographed while I was standing there & actually hoped that some press photog witnessed what happened & was photographing, but those girls didn't bank on being arrested either.</i><p>

 

The journist takes the images with the intent of covering the story. It's a bit insensitive but is being sensitive to everybody's wishes the job of the PJ? Or is getting the shot that covers the story? They're there doing a job.<p>

 

<i>The behavior of the 1 photog hounding our DOC bus also turned my stomach. He even went so far as to mock us. Its these things that cause me to pause.</i><p>

 

And then there was the image of the protestor beating the crap out of the cop that hadn't done anything but sit there on their bike. I agree with you about jerk behavior but jerks are everywhere; both sides of the isle, in all professions.<p>

 

<i>I myself am still very up in the air over it, but being arrested wasn't in the plan. One guy who got swept up with us simply stopped to ask me directions on how to get somewhere.</i><p>

 

When one goes to a protest march, then one has to expect to be arrested. A police sweep doesn't have feelings by design. And if you get arrested, wanting to or not wanting to be a part of a picture has nothing to do with it as you're now part of the PJ's story.<p>

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

<i>Heather McHale , sep 07, 2004; 04:37 p.m.<p>

 

Guess we should also tell those who live in the same conditions I experienced on a daily basis that "life's not fair".</i><p>

 

I'm not quite sure of the intent of your above but most folks understand that life's not fair. I'm only trying to respond to your above in a non-emotional basis as it's the job of the PJ to get the money shot and not worry about fairness. I don't see a PJ ethics problem in your original question as "To photog or not to photog..."<p>

Danny...<br>

So you propose that people whould be arrested for not breaking any law, jsut by being somewhere? Sounds a little pre-Gorbachev Russia to me. Here in the US we have a right to speak our mind unless you've forgotten. We aren't supposed to arrest people speaking their mind. Or arrest people photographing those speaking their minds as many were.

<p>

Kent, Andrew & Brad... <br>This is where my personal quandry comes into play. I too think its important to photograph things that may be newsworthy. I just want to know how far does one go? Perhaps my personal line is not far at all. Perhaps I am somewhat a sap when it comes to scared kids. Part of me is disgusted by the coldness & part of me sees it as necessary.

sorry, Heather, that you had such a miserable experience being rounded up like that just exercising your civil rights. it is very interesting question that you have posed.

 

i recently bought the book from the exhibition of 1960s protests "The Whole World's Watching" and there are some wrenching pictures in it of police brutalily and the victims of it. i would agonize over it before taking some of those pictures but i am glad that there were some tough photographers who just went ahead and did it. because it is part of history and it is important that people in the future have pictures to look at which present the visual facts and which might stem the tide of revisionism that always takes place.

 

hope this all turns out for you ok!

i also hope thomas gardner doesn't do his usual one man show here

It seems that you're more into the political issue and the indignation of being arrested then the ethics question of to get the shot or not.

 

There's no confusion here. The job of the PJ is to get the money shot. Both sides of the coin; the mangled car, the dead child, the tears of sadness or the smiles, exualtation and joy of success or what ever might come in between.

Quiche wrote<p>

 

<i>i also hope thomas gardner doesn't do his usual one man show here.</i><p>

 

Ditto.

Thomas G:

<p>

The rational part of me agrees with lots of what your saying. The emotional part doesn't. Like I said as far as my question goes... I am not looking to make a judgement so much as to conversate to clarify what has now become muddled in my mind.<P>

sidenote... that cop on the bike that got beat... while I don't agree with the beating, I was there & he wasn't just sitting on his bike. He had run his bike into the crowd (which was peacefull throughout the whole march & just behaved confused when we were being penned off without explanation) & was crushing people with it. He was excessively agressive & ran over some kids (its a moped-looking motorcycle, not heavy, but you don't run people over with it!!!). The initial hit was to get him off the bike & that I DO agree with. The subsequent beating was a shame & should be punnished but tempered with correct info. No mention in the press about the agressive idiot cop though.

<i> I just want to know how far does one go?</i>

<p>

All the way if you want the best view.

Heather wrote<p>

 

<i>The rational part of me agrees with lots of what your saying. The emotional part doesn't. Like I said as far as my question goes... I am not looking to make a judgement so much as to conversate to clarify what has now become muddled in my mind.</i><p>

 

Hopefully I was able to lend clarity. Some folks with their cam phones are there as a looky-loo and those being arrested are part of the side show. In the case of pro PJ's, they're there to get the money shot<p>

 

<i>sidenote... that cop on the bike that got beat... while I don't agree with the beating, I was there & he wasn't just sitting on his bike. He had run his bike into the crowd...</i><p>

 

Thanks for the rest of the story.<p>

The news photogs are just doing their job. The others have just as much right to photograph.

 

The whole act of protesting is to be visual, to make a statement. You wanted to be photographed when things were going your way, but you wanted them stop when things didn't go your way. That's much like the actors and actresses who spend most of their lives trying to get into the limelight then get mad at some poor photographer who snaps their picture outside of the sound stage. You can't expect to have it both ways.

 

As for the young gals who were under 18, this may turn out to be a lesson in civics. When you break the law, even if it's a simple act of civil disobedience, you should understand that there can be consequences. At this point, you need to decide how much effort you're willing to put out for your cause. And when it comes to drawing attention to yourself, you'll need to ask if you're prepared to deal with the attention.

 

That said, I'm a journalist and I know what vultures we can be. About the only thing worse is a lawyer who's trying to solicit business by chasing ambulances or handing out his card while police are arresting people for civil disobedience.

my answer is tough shit.....its part of the game...get on with life...

Mellisa, we weren't breaking any law... thats whats so messed up about it. There was no civil disobedience.

<p>

It is estimated that over 800 of A31 arrests involved no civil disobience (breaking laws). It is estimated that over 200 were not even protesting, but just innocent bystanders passing by at the time. They were photographed as well. I spoke with 10 such people while locked up. Lots of photographers were arrested as well and had their media destroyed "accidentally". I was lucky as my cameras were packed away at the time & were not taken as evidence like so many were.

<p>

Grant & Co... OK OK, I agree with you. But how do you do it?

Grant, <br>

What would you do if you saw some kid who is 5 ft tall & scared being pushed hard by a cop while in plasticuffs? Do you yell for the cop to stop or photograph? Both have importance, I realize that... but doesn't the photograph only have real importance to the press photog?