Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 5/3/2007
|
given the way PJs behave (or rather misbehave) themselves and go out of their way to portray their victims in the most negative and sleazy way possible, do you really think it so strange that people don't like them much?
Sneaking up on your victims with small cameras to photograph them in compromising poses and situations only makes that anger grow deeper.
The police in your example therefore had every reason to be as harsh with PJs as they were with the other rioters as for all purposes the PJs were part of the mob, they were there for the same reason and not as unbiassed observers (as to me all journalists should always be).
|
|
|
|
Free Rider
(K=430) - Comment Date 5/3/2007
|
Recently, an amateur photographer was told to leave a subway station because he was taking photographs of it. Victims? If you are in a compromising pose in public, should you really be considered a victim (especially if you are the police abusing your power and we don't want to live in a police state).
I recently took pictures of the shops in Heathrow. Think the security people would have let me do that if I did not have a small camera? People can see the camera, it's just not as threatening as an SLR appears to be.
Let's take a look at some of the photographs I'm speaking of. I'm quite sure there are many on UF.
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1178329.html
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1107740.html
http://www.usefilm.com/image/208682.html
http://www.usefilm.com/image/29835.html
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1299593.html
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1299344.html
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1299307.html
Jeroen, I'm not sure how much you know of the US, but this hostility is NOT towards members of the press, but to ALL photographers. Usually, one is quoted some nonsense about 9/11 by the police, who are all too willing to confiscate equipment and photographs of moons over bridges.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 5/3/2007
|
it's not towards all photographers.
It's towards photographers who think themselves above the law and above common decency, which I hate to admit are a lot of photographers and especially once they get an SLR and some serious lenses.
It's pretty much standard for PJs, which is where the hostility towards photographers as a group originated (and especially towards anyone with an expensive looking camera).
Of course there's also envy. Someone sees you walking around with a camera they know is expensive and they harass you, feeling good about harassing "rich people" who "don't deserve all they have".
Then there's the people who simply don't know the law but think that photography should be illegal and therefore is, and act in good faith.
Sadly that includes a lot of cops and especially private security staff.
Last but not least there's the cops and rentacops who get a kick out of bullying people.
|
|
|
|
Free Rider
(K=430) - Comment Date 5/3/2007
|
I get a lot of the last kind. This is why I decided on the pocket camera for street scenes. People don't get envious, hostile or whatever. They think I'm just another dumb tourist and leave me alone. I'm too afraid to take my SLR out for street scenes. Even when I take such scenes, I'm afraid to get people in the shot. Makes my street photography a bit boring.
I have to deal with the media and PJs a lot (which is why I use a pseudonym for my photography hobby) and have only been treated nicely. This is why I am puzzled by the hostility when I'm not even photographing someone in a compromising position.
Going back to the protest issue. Surely people in the protest should expect to be photographed? Surely the police, given the formation and dress they took up should expect to be photographed?
In fact, aren't there webcams all over the place? I know that I'm photographed and that my image is plastered all over the internet live each and every time I walk up a particular street in town and then it's archived for who knows how long.
The digital format propogates photographs too. 
|
|
|
|
Free Rider
(K=430) - Comment Date 5/3/2007
|
Adding a link to the type of thing I'm talking about:
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/news/default.asp?article_id=32086&startrecord=-1.#IND
|
|
|
|
Gayle's Eclectic Photos
(K=91109) - Comment Date 5/4/2007
|
Free rider said >
"I have to deal with the media and PJs a lot (which is why I use a pseudonym for my photography hobby)..."
"I know that I'm photographed and that my image is plastered all over the internet live each and every time I walk up a particular street in town and then it's archived for who knows how long."
OMG! are you Dennis Hopper???...with statements like the above,i can only surmise that you want us to know that you are someone the pap are constantly shootin',so that is my best guess since Dennis is a shooter,too....hehehe
peeked out your link to that UK pylon story and that is without a doubt overkill per the po-leece....sheesh...pays to know your rights and here in the US of A it doesn't hurt to have connections to the ACLU and an experienced attorney...some in uniform abuse their authority IMO....
|
|
|
|
Free Rider
(K=430) - Comment Date 5/4/2007
|
Gayle, I was threatened at the airport by security there when I wanted them to hand-check my film even though it was low-speed. They actually called the police and had the police threaten to arrest me if I did not cooperate with whatever security pleased to do to me. They even had the cheek to tell me that the law saying that they could do that was a secret and I was not allowed to see a printed version. hah. Police finally left telling security that I hadn't violated any laws and they really had no right to arrest me.
No, I'm not a "someone", but I do have to be on the other side of the camera quite a bit. The average PJ seems to me to be polite and not at all intrusive and the average journalist is no Mike Wallace. Again, big celebs aside, but that's a different matter. A dude with an SLR taking a shot of a street scene is no papparazzi.
As for my image being plastered all over the web, so is everyone else's who happens to walk down that particular street. There are webcams all along that send out the images live and also archive them. There are no warnings along the street that those webcams are there. Nobody has said a word about it for years. Those webcams have been doing that for at least seven years.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 5/4/2007
|
like I said, there are always people on a powertrip who try to make up the law as they go along.
And the masses of TSA screeners hired on minimum wages off the dole line after 9/11 and planted at airport checkpoints with minimal training have a more tha equal share of them, combined with a lot of ignorance of what the law actually is.
They CAN deny a handcheck of film, but they can't arrest you for requesting it. They can however have you arrested for making a fuss and refusing to cooperate with a federal officer if you make a scene.
As for people at protests, they should indeed be expected to be photographed.
But that's not why PJs get hurt during protests. It's because the PJs have largely forgotten they're there to be passive recorders, not active participants.
They're part of the mob, harassing police officers to incite a response so they'll have juicy pictures of people being beaten or under the water cannon which sell for high prices to papers.
They're also active participants, using their jobs purely as a means to getting their far left political ideals across.
Small wonder then that they're treated like the rest of the mob and get a few pets with batons from time to time.
|
|
|
|
Kurt Driver
(K=65) - Comment Date 7/1/2009
|
"They're part of the mob, harassing police officers to incite a response so they'll have juicy pictures of people being beaten or under the water cannon which sell for high prices to papers. "
Examples please? Thanks, Kurt
|
|
|
|
analog_s1_t4 smith
(K=0) - Comment Date 7/29/2009
|
|
|
|
|
