Hector Javkin Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 (edited) 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 Edited January 16, 2020 by William Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 Apparently, the Emperor of the US does not wish it to be recorded. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 we didn't miss anything 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. 1 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 Link Impeachment trial security crackdown will limit Capitol press access Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 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. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 There must have been a hundred cell phone cameras at work in that room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 There must have been a hundred cell phone cameras at work in that room. 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. 1 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 Blame it on whoever you care to, 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. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 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. :rolleyes: Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 :rolleyes: Whatever. 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. 1 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Helmke Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving On Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 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. Edited January 16, 2020 by Moving On 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving On Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 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. 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. Edited January 16, 2020 by Moving On Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving On Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 Apparently, the Emperor of the US does not wish it to be recorded. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 Review the difference between “repression” and suppression ..... 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. 3 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving On Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frans_waterlander Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 So, political bickering is now OK on PN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 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! See Josh Hawley (R-MO) - 40 years old. Just look at that shayna punim ... He's been giving the geezers in the Senate lessons on how to take a selfie. :) And, do you really think there's a politician living or dead who minds the sound or sight of a flash going off? Freeze up? They'll come a runnin'. :p Also, what would a classic Hollywood movie about a photographer be without the sounds and sights of the flash? 1 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving On Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 It ain’t coz they’s too old.... It’s Campaign control..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving On Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 So, political bickering is now OK on PN? Of course not. Bickering is never allowed...... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) So, political bickering is now OK on PN? Politics and photography? Not never not no how! Dorothea Lange and her depression era documentaries ... never existed ... fake news. Sebastião Salgado and his photo projects about unspoiled lands and peoples who live out ancestral traditions, his founding of the Instituto Terra and its mission of reforestation and conservation education ... very hush hush. Don't say a word. Ansel Adams ... his connection to John Muir and the Sierra Club is made up nonsense. And don't get me started on Mapplethorpe's politics of gay or Goldin's politics of woman. Never happened. Get your mind out of the gutter. Thankfully, Nick Ut knew better than to photograph anything of political import during the Vietnam War and Margaret Bourke-White was never allowed into WWII combat zones. The two, photography and politics, just aren't a good fit. Nothing to see here. Nothing at all. Now move along, because have I got a sunset for you! :) Edited January 16, 2020 by samstevens 1 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eb_kidd Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 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. What perspectives - different angles of somebody handing over pieces of paper to somebody? Who really cares? I'm no Trump fan whatsoever and certainly didn't vote for the man, but as far as I'm concerned this is a bunch of play acting by politicians from both parties. Why give ANY of them special attention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts