Should cameras be allowed in the Astrodome? (friendly debate if possible)

[Kitty 34]

As much as I'm curious, too, to see what all is going on in the Astrodome, I really think we need to now respect the privacy of all the evacuees and not invade their "home" like this.

Katie Couric walking around with her camera crew this morning showing sleeping people I felt was a bit much. Probably because I drool in my sleep and would not want that to be on live coverage!! :blush: :)

Maybe there is an opinion out there that would make me feel better on this matter?

[PixieDust32]

:confused3

[DisneyDotty]

No--give the people their dignity, please.

[va32h]

I think they need to stop showing footage of the people sleeping, talking, going about their normal lives. The Astrodome is currently these people's home, and they deserve whatever small measure of privacy can be given to them.

If people want to give interviews, fine, set up an area where that can be done, with permission of all those who appear on camera.

It's a question of dignity - these are human beings, not novelties. Some of the coverage - Katie Couric's in particular - is just so patronizing. Oh look! A hurricane victim! Please relive your awful story on camera for all the world to see while I nod and pretend to be sympathetic! (Sorry to get carried away, I just really hate Katie Couric!)

There is a fine line between being sympathetic and being patronizing. I think that line is getting blurred - and sometimes crossed.

[Mickeyistheman]

I think if they are all still sleeping then they should have their privacy but after watching Oprah yesterday it made me feel better because it looked much better and cleaner than the Superdome. These poor people, I feel so helpless. Especially when you see the young children. I am starting a clothing drive in my town or anything anyone wants to donate. It will make me feel better to know that the children and other Americans that have suffered down there will have clean clothes and other nessesities of everyday life.

[ducklite]

va32h hit it right on--set up a press area so people who wish to be on camera can be, and it will still allow people privacy. With taht comes dignity, which right about now those folks could use as much of that as they can get.

Anne

[PixieDust32]

The superdome wasn't prepare for nothing, they just let the people in, they didn't have supplies, food, nothing! The Astrodome was prepare for them, the have from kitchens to telephone, doctors, food etc.

Also the George Brown conventions center.

[Divamomto3]

I saw 5 seconds of Katie this morning and I was appalled that their set was on the second tier of the AstroDome with the sleeping people beneath her. I immediately felt like she was making them a zoo exhibit.

[JimMIA]

NO! Leave them alone. If they want to be interviewed, the shelter managers can set up interview venues outside the shelter.

The news media have a right and an obligation to cover the story, but there are reasonable ways to do so. Also, they deal with restrictions on their access in every story they cover, so it's not an inconvenience for them

If they absolutely MUST have film of the inside of the shelter, they can send a pool camera in and take some "B-roll."

[WDWBetsy]

Personally, I think this will keep the need fresh in people's minds. It's really easy for the cameras to go away and the suffering to continue. It's also a way for relatives to spot their loved ones, not only in specific interviews.

To me, it's keeping the horrific number of people affected vivid in my mind. If you only see a few interviews here and there, the amount who are suffering is diminished.

In this country, our attention span is way too short. Seeing thousands of cots filled on a football field puts a very lasting memory in my mind. Many of these people have lost everything. I was shocked to see people being loaded on luggage carts and stacked in a military plane on Oprah yesterday, but it definitely made me want to help more, not turn my head in disgust.

This can't be something we forget. We owe those evacuated more than that. We owe it to those who couldn't be saved.

[ducklite]

I immediately felt like she was making them a zoo exhibit.

::yes:: ::yes::

Anne

[Pete's Mom]

va32h hit it right on--set up a press area so people who wish to be on camera can be, and it will still allow people privacy. With taht comes dignity, which right about now those folks could use as much of that as they can get.

Anne ::yes:: These poor people are surrounded 24/7 by the noise and buzz of fellow survivors. I never really thought about it until now, but I can't imagine what it must be like to not be able to get away and be alone for some peace and quiet. :(

[robinb]

Personally, I think this will keep the need fresh in people's minds. It's really easy for the cameras to go away and the suffering to continue.

ITA. Out of sight, out of mind.

[kejoda]

I think the only good thing about the camaras is that someone somewhere has a chance to see someone that they know and have not found out if they were ok or not. But that could be accomplished in another area or at certain times of the day.

Its almost like its a zoo exhibit.

[lovetheparks]

I think they (the media) should be able to set up outside and of people want to talk and be on camera then it's their choice. I do agree that the more media coverage, the more attention and these people do still need our help but they should have some semblance of privacy.

[va32h]

Showing footage of the destroyed cities can "keep it fresh in people's minds".

How do you look when you are asleep? When you first wake up in the morning? Have your children ever picked a fight with each other? With you? Have you ever yelled at your kids? Cried? Belched, farted, picked your nose?

Now imagine having that broadcast all over cable TV with a voiceover reminding everyone that you are homeless and broke, and have to wear donated clothes and eat donated food and sleep in a sports stadium at night.

Oh, and at any given time, a stranger with a microphone gets to walk up to you and demand to know how you feel, and if any of your relatives died in the hurricane.

There is plenty of footage already that shows what happened and how devastating it was. There will be plenty of footage of the cleanup and rebuilding. We don't need to watch people trying to go about their daily lives.

[ducklite]

For those who think the camera's should be allowed...

Put yourself in the mind of an evacuee. You are left with a single bag of worldly possessions, put into a pit of filth, herded around like cattle, and just when your life is starting to get into a routine, you have camera's broadcasting your face to the world.

Some people don't like to be on film at all, others only if they are "made up". It just seems invasive to serve no purpose other than to sensationalize the story.

Anne

[Pete's Mom]

Oh, and at any given time, a stranger with a microphone gets to walk up to you and demand to know how you feel, and if any of your relatives died in the hurricane. That's what bothers me. :mad: Some people want to grieve in peace, not be martyrs. :sad2:

[Planogirl]

I agree that the cameras should be kept in a certain area. There's no need to film sleeping people or anyone that doesn't want to be shown on TV. I am kind of amused at the notion of "privacy" though. Yes, you are alone with several thousand others!

[totalia]

No. Thats just wrong somehow.

[Kitty 34]

I agree with the fact that the footage of the devastation will keep this tragedy more fresh in my mind than seeing evacuees sleeping.

Planogirl, I know using the word privacy was a bit tongue in cheek. I can't imagine what it would be like hour after hour surrounded by thousands of people without true privacy. That would be very psychologically challenging in itself.

The idea to set up an area with cameras for any of the evacuees to get things off their chest or to simply show their face for hopefully a loved one to see would be a great idea.

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I would say respect the privacy--but many many many people are still wanting to go on camear b/c they cannot find their loved ones or want their relatives to know they are okay.

Banning cameras would take away that service.

After this week--the live broadcasts as if they are broacasting a game commentary should cease.....but I don't think cameras should be banned all together. I'm sure if it was a true intrusion--they would let officials know and those striped wrist bands for the media would disappear.

[va32h]

I am kind of amused at the notion of "privacy" though. Yes, you are alone with several thousand others!

Better alone with thousands of others who know what you are going through than broadcast to millions who don't.

To make a very small comparison - when dh came home from Iraq, there were cameras at the airport. While we were waiting for the plane to arrive, news crews trolled the area, looking for families to get on camera. Since I had three kids with me (adorable, photogenic kids, if I do say so myself) our little group attracted a bit of attention.

Several reporters asked how old the kids were, how long dh had been gone, had dh ever seen the baby (she was 9 months old at the time) When I said "yes" they were completely disappointed. They had visions of a story "Iraq vet meets his baby daughter for the first time". They really wanted as pathetic and dramatic a story as possible.

Anyway, when everyone got off the plane, all the families rushed to greet their loved ones, and we were just a tad po'd to have cameras and reporters suddenly in our faces, wanting to know how we felt. At one point, the camera got between me and dh, so the reporter could ask him how happy he was to be home.

Now, I didn't mind a bunch of other families seeing me cry and kiss my husband and carry on, I figure they were too busy having their own reunions to pay attention to mine, but I hated having that broadcast on TV. It was a private moment between us, even if we were in a public place.

And I don't know if anyone else on the DIS has had occasion to be filmed on TV, but those cameras are HUGE. And they get right in your face. Like, inches away.

My kids thought it would be "so cool" to be on TV, but when it was over, they agreed it was not at all fun.

[froglady]

I was one of the last families in our area to get power back after Charley, and answered the door one night to find a film crew on my doorstep! I really didn't want to talk to them (I was hot, tired, and hadn't had a hot shower or shampoo in almost 3 weeks! ) but the reporter pleaded with me until he wore me down.

At least I hadn't lost everything,including friends and family, so I could find some humor in the situation, knowing that my life would soon be back to normal. I can't imagine going throught that in other circumstances!

[WDWBetsy]

I'm not saying they should have close-ups on people, unless they want them. I certainly don't want to be on camera in the morning with my bedhead look going on. :crazy:

But I see nothing wrong with an overview shot of the shelters - showing the enormous amounts of survivors. Not actual faces, but the amount of lives uprooted, destroyed, changed forever.

The footage of the destroyed city, homes, streets, buildings, etc. is moving because it shows the lost way of life. Those left behind - either by choice or no other way.

But footage of people searching for their relatives needs to keep happening. I also think people like to see that the money donated is helping feed, clothe, administer medical treatment, and shelter those in need. Again - no close-ups needed.

[Kitty 34]

I would say respect the privacy--but many many many people are still wanting to go on camear b/c they cannot find their loved ones or want their relatives to know they are okay.

Banning cameras would take away that service.

After this week--the live broadcasts as if they are broacasting a game commentary should cease.....but I don't think cameras should be banned all together. I'm sure if it was a true intrusion--they would let officials know and those striped wrist bands for the media would disappear.


I'm not suggesting banning cameras altogether.......just having them set up in certain places. Having Katie Couric walk up and down putting the camera on sleeping people was a bit exploitive, I think.

[JimMIA]

I was one of the last families in our area to get power back after Charley, and answered the door one night to find a film crew on my doorstep! I really didn't want to talk to them (I was hot, tired, and hadn't had a hot shower or shampoo in almost 3 weeks! ) but the reporter pleaded with me until he wore me down.

At least I hadn't lost everything,including friends and family, so I could find some humor in the situation, knowing that my life would soon be back to normal. I can't imagine going throught that in other circumstances!
Nobody ever promised your "15 minutes of fame" would be a good thing. ;)

[pw2pp]

I didn't see the newscast with Katie Couric, but by the way people are describing it, it just re-inforces in my mind how much I can't stand that woman.

[Rajah]

I'm not saying they should have close-ups on people, unless they want them. I certainly don't want to be on camera in the morning with my bedhead look going on. :crazy:

But I see nothing wrong with an overview shot of the shelters - showing the enormous amounts of survivors. Not actual faces, but the amount of lives uprooted, destroyed, changed forever.

The footage of the destroyed city, homes, streets, buildings, etc. is moving because it shows the lost way of life. Those left behind - either by choice or no other way.

But footage of people searching for their relatives needs to keep happening. I also think people like to see that the money donated is helping feed, clothe, administer medical treatment, and shelter those in need. Again - no close-ups needed.
I may be in the minority, but I agree. Overviews that don't show any closeups and are brief I think are good -- helps us to see that the need is still there.

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I don't know--for once it was nice to see infants in the snuggly arms of their mother--safe and sound and fed instead of hot sweaty and listless.

For me--it is a little bit of closure to see that they are being taken care of now. I didn't have a problem with her walking the aisles--that's how one man got her attention to show his grandson's picture.

I still am wondering what happened to the twins and triplet babies that were shown outside the superdome :(.

[goin2disneyagain]

va32h hit it right on--set up a press area so people who wish to be on camera can be, and it will still allow people privacy. With taht comes dignity, which right about now those folks could use as much of that as they can get.

Anne
I agree. They have been thru enough as it is.

[ByTheSea]

Yes, I think cameras should be allowed. I think it keeps things in perspective and helps motivate people to give to help these people out.

It seems like they should be able to fuzz out faces (as they often do in the background on reality TV/documentaries etc) if they don't get a release from someone.

Perhaps for live shots they can set up an area with a backdrop that blocks out the background shots, but I think it's important that people do see the setup at the Astrodome, the lack of privacy these people have, how they have to live. Yes they have food and water now, and it's dry, but this isn't a home for anyone.

[totalia]

Allowing cameras is just "beating a dead horse." Eventually people will become desensitized to the image. Its the way people are. This tragedy needs to be treated with respect, not used to make money.

[Southern4sure]

Allowing cameras is just "beating a dead horse." Eventually people will become desensitized to the image. Its the way people are. This tragedy needs to be treated with respect, not used to make money.

::yes:: ITA!!

[mamaprincess]

I think so. Such a major event in our country should be well documented for subsequent generations as well as for many other reasons that have already been expressed.