Anyone want to talk about the photography aspect of last week's events?

[photo_chick]

I agree. What I was referring to is when you are working an event and your employer/client gets the images. The editors/graphics folks make the choice which images are posted.

Ahh.. yes. Then we have to decide about what our job is and at what point is what they want us to do in conflict with what we feel is the right thing to do.

 

[photo_chick]

There was a fascinating and emotional piece on CBS Sunday Morning week before last regarding the opening of the World Trade Center Memorial Museum. The head of the organization and board members shared some of the discussions/arguments as to what would go into it. There appeared to be a clear line between those that felt that the public should see it all in all of it's horror and those that wanted to sanitize it for the public. It seems the truth is winning out. Many of the board members are family members of those that were lost. Subjects like do you show the faces of the terrorists or how do you cover those that jumped if at all!

I believe the winning theme is the entire story needs to be told, you cannot and should not sanitize history. I agree with that philosophy personally.

I do not want to see body parts on the evening news but I do want to be able to have somewhere where I can elect to find out what truly happened. I believe we have sanitized too many horrific times in history and believe it does change the story over time.

We are all journalists today with our cell phones, etc and look at what we are seeing!

There is a difference between telling the whole story and the media/social media running images into the ground.

My husband and I were just talking about the 9/11 documentary. The one where the film makers just happened to be already following a fire house when the attack happened. They have footage in there from inside the lobby of the World Trade Center. You hear the thuds of people who jumped out of windows hitting the top of the lobby. That footage wasn't on the news. I think if it had been that it wouldn't have the impact it does when you see that scene in the film. People need to see that footage and remember that each of those thuds was a person dying at that moment. If footage like that is played over and over we stop listening. And that is a huge problem with our society today. There is just so much thrown at us that we mentally dismiss many things.

And I think if they're making a museum the whole story, every image, every video, every call for help, should be there. But that media shouldn't become a viral post on Facebook or the most viewed article on CNN.com.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

PHOTO THERAPY: VIEWS OF ITALY HELP HEAL WOUNDS FROM THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBINGS

Globe photographer Stan Grossfeld was vacationing in Italy in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings. Feeling powerless, he turned his camera lens on his beautiful surroundings to create some “photo therapy” for Boston.

http://www.boston.com/travel/2013/0...-bombing/pBiCfsfXbXq5x9D7oJfIRK/pictures.html

 

[AndrewWG]

I couldn't snap pictures while people were bleeding to death on the sidewalk. I would have put down the camera and helped in whatever way I could. Knowing one person who is suffering from multiple surgeries with many more to come, I would hope that I could have helped him in some way and not taken a photo of his suffering.

 

[cjstarr]

I couldn't snap pictures while people were bleeding to death on the sidewalk. I would have put down the camera and helped in whatever way I could. Knowing one person who is suffering from multiple surgeries with many more to come, I would hope that I could have helped him in some way and not taken a photo of his suffering.

AndrewWG you're not alone.

 

[Andrew K]

I am glad that some photographers had the fortitude to keep shooting. I work in healthcare and have already used some of the more graphic images as training aids with some that I mentor.
That being said I had to search for the most graphic and I doubt the majority of the world needed to see them. The ones out there already showed what happened. But if someone hadn’t taken the ones I used a vital lesson may have been lost.
I also couldn’t help but notice people with cameras at their side finger off the shutter pulling down barricades or ripping up shirts. I’m just thankful that I didn’t have to choose between the documentarian side of me and the healthcare side of me.

 

[fitzperry]

In the past the government has regulated the dissemination of news photo, film and video. But with the internet and this free flow of information that regulation is now in the direct hands of the people. And I'm not sure we, as a society, are making the best choices in what to share.

Photo Chick, I agree with your position that we don't always make good choices about what to share. I personally avoid looking at graphic images of events like this one and try to shield my kids from them (sometimes easier said than done). However, we are supposed to have a free press in this country. Given the ease with which information can be shared, it's arguably freer than ever today, and while not everyone exercises that freedom responsibly, on balance, I'll take the freedom. It beats government regulation of what we see and hear.

 

[photo_chick]

Photo Chick, I agree with your position that we don't always make good choices about what to share. I personally avoid looking at graphic images of events like this one and try to shield my kids from them (sometimes easier said than done). However, we are supposed to have a free press in this country. Given the ease with which information can be shared, it's arguably freer than ever today, and while not everyone exercises that freedom responsibly, on balance, I'll take the freedom. It beats government regulation of what we see and hear.

Having a free press does not mean the freedom to print or publish whatever we choose. There are limitations on that freedom in the media, usually imposed by agencies like the FCC. Online there is no freedom of the press. You must abide by the rules of the site owner and the server owner as well as the laws of the place in which the server is housed.

 

[fitzperry]

Having a free press does not mean the freedom to print or publish whatever we choose.

Then what does it mean?

There are limitations on that freedom in the media, usually imposed by agencies like the FCC.

The FCC regulates broadcast media in that it grants licenses to radio and tv stations. But there aren't many content based restrictions other than rules that require broadcast stations to give equal time to opposing political candidates and offer opportunities for rebuttal, but that's about it. The "fairness doctrine" (rightly) hasn't been enforced for years (despite some ridiculous threats to reinstate it). Other laws like campaign finance laws indirectly restrict speech, but again, they are not content based restrictions and do not directly regulate or restrict the press.

Print media are, for the most part, unregulated. They can publish most anything that isn't defamatory or obscene.

Online there is no freedom of the press. You must abide by the rules of the site owner and the server owner as well as the laws of the place in which the server is housed.

Although plenty of politicians are trying to ruin it, the internet also remains mostly a free marketplace of ideas. Abiding by a site or server owner's rules is not a government restriction and has nothing to do with freedom of the press. I'm not sure what you mean by "laws of the place in which the server is housed."

 

[Wishes2you]

I couldn't snap pictures while people were bleeding to death on the sidewalk. I would have put down the camera and helped in whatever way I could. Knowing one person who is suffering from multiple surgeries with many more to come, I would hope that I could have helped him in some way and not taken a photo of his suffering.

I too would have put down my camera and helped that is just who I am.

 

[photo_chick]

Then what does it mean?

Take a US government class. There are several ways the press's freedom are limited by some of the same things that limit free speech. The sedition act of 1918 comes to mind.

The FCC regulates broadcast media in that it grants licenses to radio and tv stations. But there aren't many content based restrictions other than rules that require broadcast stations to give equal time to opposing political candidates and offer opportunities for rebuttal, but that's about it. The "fairness doctrine" (rightly) hasn't been enforced for years (despite some ridiculous threats to reinstate it). Other laws like campaign finance laws indirectly restrict speech, but again, they are not content based restrictions and do not directly regulate or restrict the press.

What is broadcast on the news is regulated and most definately censored. A good example, you can't drop the f bomb on the nightly news. It's pushed all the time but the limits are there. I was listing the FCC as one example.

Print media are, for the most part, unregulated. They can publish most anything that isn't defamatory or obscene.

You listed restrictions on freedom of the press right there.

Although plenty of politicians are trying to ruin it, the internet also remains mostly a free marketplace of ideas. Abiding by a site or server owner's rules is not a government restriction and has nothing to do with freedom of the press. I'm not sure what you mean by "laws of the place in which the server is housed."

Every site has a terms of use. When you violate it they can ban you. It's their house, their rules. And there are a lot of rules out there. I can't think of a single site that doesn't have them. And the server where the site is housed makes a difference. An example... in some places it's illegal to have a server that hosts adult content. It matters where in the world your server is located.

 

[fitzperry]

Take a US government class. There are several ways the press's freedom are limited by some of the same things that limit free speech. The sedition act of 1918 comes to mind.

Thanks so very much for the thoughtful suggestion, but I don't need to take a government class. That's pretty much my profession.

You seem to have interpreted my question, "Then what does it mean?" as hostile. It wasn't and I apologize if it came across that way. I was genuinely curious, in light of your earlier comments, as to what kind of restrictions you think are appropriate.

Incidentally, the Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed a couple of years later and would probably (hopefully) be struck down as unconstitutional today because the Supreme Court has since clarified that the 1st Amendment protects speech critical of the government and public officials.

What is broadcast on the news is regulated and most definately censored. A good example, you can't drop the f bomb on the nightly news. It's pushed all the time but the limits are there. I was listing the FCC as one example.

Which is entirely consistent with my point that regulation of the substance of the news is minimal, even in the broadcast context (I didn't say such regulation was non-existent). Restricting the use of profanity doesn't really affect the substance or content of the news.

You listed restrictions on freedom of the press right there.

The notion that intentionally false statements that harm a person's reputation are not constitutionally protected is hardly a significant restriction.

I have no desire to get into a prolonged debate with you about semantics and the degree to which the press is regulated in the United States. The topic of the thread was photos that were published, and I mentioned you in my original post because I thought you implied they (or some subset of them) should not have been. In other words, you seemed to imply that the publication of disturbing images like the ones that were the subject of this thread should be subject to greater regulation. I disagree because, aside from protecting people from defamation, I generally think the government should leave the press alone. That's all I was trying to say, and that is why I was curious as to what kind of regulation you appeared to be advocating.

Every site has a terms of use. When you violate it they can ban you. It's their house, their rules. And there are a lot of rules out there. I can't think of a single site that doesn't have them.

Of course they do, but a private site's terms of use are not governmental restrictions and, therefore, don't implicate the 1st Amendment.

And the server where the site is housed makes a difference. An example... in some places it's illegal to have a server that hosts adult content. It matters where in the world your server is located.

I don't disagree that it matters where in the world your server is located, but like private terms of use, foreign laws would not implicate the 1st A. I suppose if you choose to host your site on a foreign server, you take what you get. I'm not aware of any laws in the U.S. that prohibit servers in that jurisdiction from hosting adult content (doesn't mean there aren't any, but I would think that would raise 1st A concerns). Although I wish I had time to do so, I have not kept up with SOPA and other proposed legislation that would affect the dissemination of information over the internet.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Moving Marathon Bombing photos from Boston Press Photographers

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...n_marathon_bombing_video/?bctid=2415837720001