Reading mode: Light Dark

TV cameraman confronted

Go to last post
L

lbuclk=

Senior Member
Messages
4,342
Reaction score
260
Location
Laurel, US
http://wdam.com/global/video/popup/pop_player.asp?ClipID1=1894724&h1=Business%20owner%20confronts%20us%20after%20blast&vt1=v&at1=News&d1=80666&LaunchPageAdTag=Homepage&activePane=info&playerVersion=1&hostPageUrl=http%3A//wdam.com/&rnd=83960613

I also posted this elsewhere in the forums. this happened in a small town in Mississippi.

--

25 years as a freelancer,(news,magazine, wedding photography) camera equip. over the years: Practica MLT, Canon A1, Minolta 9xi, 7xi, Dimage Z1,Fuji 5200,Canon S2,Pentax K100D,Olympus 380(see my Z1 shots at http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Buckl/ the COMMUNITY album was done with the Z1, and most of the photos in the album:Other were w/the Z1)
 
It is a disgrace to film someone who has suffered a great loss. What is humanity coming to, feeding on the misery of others.

The police should have locked this cameraman away for a long time, that will teach him exploiting suffering.
--
Windmills, just do it.
 
I agree that the shopowner had a moral (if not legal) right to object to being photographed. But I suspect that since technically it was a newsworthy event (must have been a S L L O O W W news day!) that the shop owner would not be able to defend his actions in court.

Both the shopowner and the photographer were wrong. He had several seconds of footage unlikely to make it onto the evening news and there was no reasnon to antagonize the owner further which he was clearly trying to do. (for Better footage maybe?) Of course the shop owner misunderstood his rights to privacy.

The cop was correct in breaking it up. But I've been around long enough to suspect the photographer's motives.
--
STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington
 
The shop owner is probably looking at having OSHA crawl up his posterior with a microscope. Not a pleasant thought. Other than that, he had no reason or right to do what he did. He's lucky he didn't go to jail for his actions.

--
Crime Scene Photography
A small gallery of personal work: http://picasaweb.google.com/PID885
 
The shop keeper should have been arrested for a legal assault. The photographer should have pressed the charge, given he had proof that an assault occurred. The police officer, witnessing the assault should have given the shop keeper one warning to leave the area, or be subject to immediate arrest.

assault: "occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures or speech that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault."
 
The shopowner has no right whatsoever to interfere with the news photographer.

Sure, he probably didn't want to be on TV because he probably has some kind of violation going on inside, be it OSHA or who knows what else!

The policeman also had no right to tell the photographer to leave . . .

He should have arrested the shop owner!

Having been a newspaper photog for a long time I have been confronted several times like this!

And usually it was because the person/victim (whatever you want to call them) had something to hide!

There was an explosion . . . that makes it a news story!

--
J. Daniels
Colorful Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50
Olympus E-510
Fuji S602Z, A825



Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!
 
MusicDoctorDJ said:
The shopowner has no right whatsoever to interfere with the news
photographer.

Sure, he probably didn't want to be on TV because he probably has
some kind of violation going on inside, be it OSHA or who knows what
else!

The policeman also had no right to tell the photographer to leave . . .

He should have arrested the shop owner!

Having been a newspaper photog for a long time I have been confronted
several times like this!

And usually it was because the person/victim (whatever you want to
call them) had something to hide!

There was an explosion . . . that makes it a news story!
Click to expand...
In addition it required the police to respond, and possibly other government agencies, at tax payer expense. This makes it everyones business.

--

FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind.
 
Shop owner is not correct and should have been thrown in Jail for messing with the camera man's rights and assulting him. He was on the other side of the street not on the shop owners land. The camera man has the right to shoot anything he wants from a safe distance. Its our rights as photographers and camera men. The one who should have done more with the shop owner was the cop who just turned his back as the owner confornted the camera man. He should have been locked up for tresspasing on the other shop owners land and assulting the camera man. What the owner was doing that caused the explosion most likely illegal and that is why he confronted the camera man. B/c now his insurance will not cover the damages.

You people are on here getting advice about cameras, and ideas and stuff like that and you have the nerve to say the camera man should have been thrown in jail for taking pictures or video. That is what we fight for the right to take pictures for a living.
--
Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice.
 
The cameraman was photographing from across the street, on public property. He was pefectly in his right to do so. If we start restricting news photographers from legitimately photographing newsworthy events, then the rest of us amateurs will eventually be limited in what we can legitimately photograph, too. Do we really want that?

Robert

--

My state of confusion has turned into a circle of confusion.
 
If photographers consist to ignore all other human morality and normal politeness, preferring instead to insist on their rights no matter what. Regardless of rights, if somebody really doesn't want their picture taken, DON'T TAKE THEIR PICTURE. Obviously, there are some circumstances where this doesn't apply, but as a general rule, it's a very good one.

Every time a member of the non-photography-obsessed public runs into an obnoxious cameraman like you or the guy described in the post, they support photographers in general that much less. You give the rest of us a bad name. Be polite, respect the wishes of others.

--
Patrick Martin
http://www.patrickmartin.com
 
Many cities are adopting video technologies that put surveillance cameras on every street corner and intersection to monitor traffic problems and potential crime. Worst of all it's done so in a way that you and me have no way to know if we are being recorded, or how long it's being recorded for.

I would doubt those above protesting about the evil camera guy would object to this. Scary, huh.

'Billy Bob' store owner in this case was simply being an a$$, and in a bigger city might have done some jail time. Or, a more savy news crew would have badgered Billy Bob into a more of a rage until he did something really stupid and made some more news.

I credit the cop though being in a no win situation and resolving it.
 
Camera boy was a wus. If he truly felt that he was just "doing his job" he wouldn't have run away from that elderly businessman.

And that's just it...camera boy knew that his actions were less than honorable and that's why he coward.
lbuclk= said:
http://wdam.com/global/video/popup/pop_player.asp?ClipID1=1894724&h1=Business%20owner%20confronts%20us%20after%20blast&vt1=v&at1=News&d1=80666&LaunchPageAdTag=Homepage&activePane=info&playerVersion=1&hostPageUrl=http%3A//wdam.com/&rnd=83960613

I also posted this elsewhere in the forums. this happened in a small
town in Mississippi.

--
25 years as a freelancer,(news,magazine, wedding photography) camera
equip. over the years: Practica MLT, Canon A1, Minolta 9xi, 7xi,
Dimage Z1,Fuji 5200,Canon S2,Pentax K100D,Olympus 380(see my Z1 shots
at http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Buckl/ the COMMUNITY album
was done with the Z1, and most of the photos in the album:Other were
w/the Z1)
Click to expand...
 
What kind of whimpy up-bringing did you have?

I'm pretty sure that no mississippi cop would consider that assault.
Califlefty said:
The shop keeper should have been arrested for a legal assault. The
photographer should have pressed the charge, given he had proof that
an assault occurred. The police officer, witnessing the assault
should have given the shop keeper one warning to leave the area, or
be subject to immediate arrest.

assault: "occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in
a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened.
Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures or
speech that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an
assault."
Click to expand...
 
you're a pulitzer prize winning photo journalist and that's what makes you an expert, right?
MusicDoctorDJ said:
The shopowner has no right whatsoever to interfere with the news
photographer.

Sure, he probably didn't want to be on TV because he probably has
some kind of violation going on inside, be it OSHA or who knows what
else!

The policeman also had no right to tell the photographer to leave . . .

He should have arrested the shop owner!

Having been a newspaper photog for a long time I have been confronted
several times like this!

And usually it was because the person/victim (whatever you want to
call them) had something to hide!

There was an explosion . . . that makes it a news story!

--
J. Daniels
Colorful Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50
Olympus E-510
Fuji S602Z, A825



Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!
Click to expand...
 
When's the last time you saw a reporter ask a question that wasn't completely moronic.

Scenario:

At a fire that destroyed a family's home.

Reporter:

"Your house is gone, you have nothing left, share with us how you feel."

Oh, that's a good one.

The media loves suffering.

For some odd reason, they think that is what their viewers want to watch.

NOT!

alan
 
Reporters of the kind in the video do not care about personal suffering, they only care about the hard cash they can earn by showcasing misery. Must be terrible to have such a character.
--
Windmills, just do it.
 
Assault, You gotta be kiddin!! Sounds like Lawyer Speak! Lawyers, one step BELOW Used Car Salesmen!

Sheesh!

Now, with that said, the Camera Man was on Public Property, he had every right to be there and the Shop Owner was WRONG!
 
vinkeatkel said:
you're a pulitzer prize winning photo journalist and that's what
makes you an expert, right?
Click to expand...
Not a pulitzer prize winner . . . but 20 years as a newspaper photographer . . . yes!

So what's your problem . . . ?

--
J. Daniels
Colorful Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50
Olympus E-510
Fuji S602Z, A825



Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top