Like the rest of the world I have been following the events of Tuesday with horror. I do wonder about the news value of some of the images in the papers and on TV news reports.
What possible value is there in a full page photograph, or extended video clip, of some poor sod falling to their death?
Some years ago we had a talk from a press photographer at a camera club I attended. His attitude was that it is not for him to 'censor' the news; all he does is take the photographs and it's nothing to do with him whether or not they are published. Cop out or fair comment.
Your thoughts please.
------------------
Regards
Keith
Cop out I think. Just because a shot of someone falling out of a building may be newsworthy (bear in mind that its open to question how that value judgement is made in the first place)does not make it right for the person taking the shot to shy away from their responsibilities as a human being.
I still remember the horror stories of a few years back when some press photographers allegedly stood by for some considerable time, taking shots of Diana dying, without offering her assistance.
We all lose something far more valuable and tangible than the vociferous comments about the imminent loss of our democratic values, etc, when we lose our basic humanity and the core values of caring for one another.
WB
I would obviously not agree with a photographer standing taking photographs when he could have been helping. However, after watching the live television pictures of the towers burning and collapsing, I was shocked into incredulity. This was just like a movie, it couldn't be real. Logically there were people in the buildings, but I couldn't see them. I was stunned. It was only the next day when the pictures showing people hanging out of the windows waving that the total horror of the human tragedy hit me hard. I knew right from the start that people had died, but it was only when I actually saw people that it really hit home. Maybe that's just me. I'd be interested to hear other peoples' reactions.
Paul
There's a difference between shots taken of desperate victims throwing themselves from the World Trade Building and photographers crowding round Diana in her final moments.
In New York, camera crews were kept at a distance, and shot the events as best they could on a long lens. Nobody could reach people trapped in the upper stories - let alone help them to safety. There was nothing these camera crews could do but document the chaos and tragedy.
In the case of Princess Diana's fatal crash, photographers were in a position to help and call emergency services. As I understand it they did neither and carried on snapping.
My biggest problem with news coverage over the last couple of days has been some of the poor reporting.
Yesterday, some of the 24 hour news channels reported on known cases of bin Laden followers living and working in the US for years before being called into action. At no time were we told that the majority (if not all) of the people that leave Afghanistan do so to ESCAPE the Taliban.
For those unaware of global politics, such stories would only heighten any feelings of paranoia. If such reports continue with any force and regularity, the repercussions on our own streets may be brutal and tragic. The extreme right thrives on this sort of scaremongering, so I can only condemn this news coverage as irresponsible.
Pete
Perhaps its the scale of the tragedy or the distance (miles) that makes it take longer for the mind to comprehend, or like you say the visual impact of people in dispair that makes it hit so hard.
It must also (hope im never in the position) be very difficult to be able to report or give details of such a thing (tell the story) without it somehow, somewhere in the story seem so distastful how can you talk or ever learn to be able to detail such events without seeming to offend/disgust someone? whilst trying so hard to just "tell the event as it happens"
It brings such emotive feelings with it.
But for me as well it was the scene,s of people trapped/falling from the towers that brought it close and made it all too real.
[This message has been edited by Stuart B-M (edited 13 September 2001).]
In defence of photo journalism, I'll also mention the extreme attrocities that were captured on film during the Vietnam War - the impact of which was instrumental in bringing that war to an end.
Photography taken when journalists were finally allowed into Auschwitz (upsetting and disturbing as they are) have had a profound effect around the world, and serve as a strong reminder of the horrors human beings are capable of.
I don't want to be sheltered. If we cover our eyes to the world's evils, then those evils will get bigger and bigger and finally bite us.
Pete
[This message has been edited by pcwells (edited 13 September 2001).]
Digging into my memories a little, I can't help comparing this reporting with things like the Hindenburg crash. The thing caught fire and exploded, while a reporter virtually wept into his mike. Should he have stopped trying to describe the situation, or was he right to try to keep going? Had he stopped we would not have had some of the most moving footage of a disaster. He could not possibly have done anything to help, he was far away and hundreds of feet below. His choice was clear, he had to keep going.
James Cameron (reporter on the Guardian, not the film maker) did a piece for BBC TV many years ago, describing exactly what goes through the mind or a war reporter. They all have this problem, do you report and get paid or do you try to interfere? By reporting, you make sure the world knows what's going on, by interfering you become part of the process.
There's never an easy way out of this one. My view is that you report and face the consequences. At least that way we can see what's going on and form our own opinions.
Pete, you got in while I was typing, I'm 100% with you on this.
[This message has been edited by Alan Roberts at work (edited 13 September 2001).]
Sometimes it is important to see these events in their true form.
The site of those people jumping/falling from those buildings was sickening in the extreme. But like Tony Blair said, those pictures will stand as evidence against whoever committed those crimes.
In years to come if people ever need a wake up call the pictures are there.
However, I do feel there is a very large problem on terrestrial TV at the moment of "Top 10 police chases" etc - even the BBC, which usually refrains from such dreadful programming is joining in.
The very fact that you are showing joyriders flying along in a stolen car only serves to glamorise the act. Especially when you play a dance track underneath the footage - unforgivable.
I do think it is time our media started to accept a little responsibility and also attempted to highlight some of the positive experiences in our world.
All we ever hear is "Doctor kills patient". What's wrong with all the times when "Doctor saves lives"??
I for one would like to occasionally read something positive...
A thought-provoking thread. Clearly not an issue with the coverage of, and since Tuesday's appalling events, but it concerns me greatly that the presence of "the visual media" (ie a guy with a video camera, or preferably a full TV crew) acts as a catalyst at demonstrations and confrontations. I've watched coverage of various hot-spots around the world where the participants are clearly playing to the camera, even to the extent that one feels that a 'director' has just shouted "action" before violence erupts.
There seems to be a need in [some] humans to witness the portrayal of violence - hence the apparent popularity of horror and even perish-the-thought "snuff" videos. Long gone is the time when the 'western' baddie got shot and fell off his horse in a pile of dust; now we have to see bullet entry and exit in slow motion with maximum bloody effects. So have we been conditioned to expect and even require explicit violence? (often shown well before the notional 9pm TV 'watershed'). Hollywood disaster movies have striven for ever-increasingly spectacular and costly special effects but, let's face it, these pall into insignificance in comparison with coverage of Tuesday's events in New York.
So is it the chicken or the egg - do we 'thus-conditioned' viewers demand ultimate gore, or should we blame the TV media for inflicting it upon us in their insatiable quest for higher audience ratings? - even to the extent that we (collectively) seem to find it difficult to distinguish between staged and real life horror, and no longer reject the latter? Apparently we in UK were spared some of the shots that the American networks elected to screen...
Having visited the viewing gallery atop one of the World Trade Center buildings and looked down which was scary enough, I am still trying to come to terms with the thought of being there whilst the whole structure collapses beneath or on top of me and falls through 1,300 feet. Unimaginable. But that's what happened to thousands of poor souls last Tuesday.
Yes, I'm with you Keith and WB, the issue here is humanity - mutual respect for the value of each others' lives. As commentators have said, the world will never be the same since Tuesday; I wonder if it will be better?
Alan++
As the subject of violence in movies has been raised, I'll just add that horror movies and high-octane violent action movies are viewed by millions around the world.
And the world was still shocked at what it saw on the news this week.
I have faith that people are more complex and more intelligent than the likes of Christopher Tookey would give them credit for.
Pete
Ben,
News is news. "Doctor saves lives" happens every day and therefore isn't rare. "Doctor kills" happens rarely and is therefore newsworthy. There's no way around that. But I'm with you on the endless cheap programmes using police or surveillance footage.
Alan,
You're exactly right about the effect that a news crew has on a crowd. Point a camera at a crowd and something is bound to happen. People seem to want to be on tv and will do what's needed to make it happen. That's one of the reasons why so many journalists and reporters now use prosumer or even consumer kit these days. It isn't just that the pictures are good enough (they often aren't) or that the kit is cheap enough to throw away when times get hard (the crowd throws rocks at you). It's because you can mingle with a crowd much more easily if you look like a normal rubber-necking tourist, and you don't spark off the next round of activity.
Interesting, perhaps the possible voyeurism here could be considered to olden days when people would all gather at the town square etc to watch the public hanging. I am in no way suggesting that people want to see gore and suffering, however curiousity (perhaps morbid) is in everyone, and whether you watched out of interest or out of stunned disbelief, I doubt there are many people in the world who don't know what happened.
When we first heard about it we thought it was a sick joke, however I know a guy that works for CNN so I phoned him to ask what was going on. He told me it was true, but he was a little busy to talk, which is understandable. After tuning in one of the videos on our edit suite so we could watch it I can only say that most of our office was transfixed in disbelief. We were only brought back into sudden reality when someone mentioned the fact that our office is right on the back of the Stock Exchange, just round the corner from Tower42 and perhaps standing around watching TV reports was not the most sensible thing to do.
I personally don't have too much of a problem was the amount of news coverage it has had because as has been mentioned in this thread - there was little the camera crews could do other than film it. I do think that perhaps some of the headlines and death toll figures however have been sensationalised a little bit to get better headlines. A lot of people have died, I'm not belittling that fact, however the difference in figures has been so wild that it is difficult to imagine where they are coming from if there are not reporters guessing.
To me it felt like watching a film, suspension of disbelieve could so easily take over and the hero would ride off into the sunset. It was not until I read an article in the paper that appeared to be written almost as if the reporter was talking to you describing walking through the rubble that I really started to feel sick.
The only comment I could make is that the world will not be the same again for a very very long time.
PS
I only hope that the Americans, before striking for retribution, pause to ask themselves why so many fundamentalists (if that is what they are) hat the US so much. After all, not long ago, 20,000 died in earthquakes in India. 130,000 died in Hiroshima in one big bang. I'm not belittling any of these events, just expressing a hope that the Americans (and all of us) take some time to try to see life from the other guy's perspective. It surely can't be a coincidence that Israel invaded Jericho while we weren't watching?
That opinion seems to be growing in popularity.
Having been asked about the Michael Moore quote I posted a few days ago, I took some time to rake around his site (http://www.michaelmoore.com), and follow some of the links he provides.
People such as Noam Chomsky are standing up to echo these very sentiments.
As you'd expect, calls for US officials to consider their own role in this affair are not reaching the mainstream media. But I'm confident that the desire to act as well as react is growing steadily.
Thanks for all the contributions guys. I am not critical of the amount of coverage or the content of the vast majority. My question was specifically about the value of certain images. The output was, by its very nature, hard to bear but was photo journalism in the raw. That is I suppose the price we pay for the immediacy of news today.
Let's just pray that all the relevant facts are collected and collated BEFORE any action is taken in response. A response is essential but a response on the genuine culprit is critical.
Maybe the US administration does need to consider why it happened but there is not, and can never be, any justification for what happened to the people of many nations who perished in the WTC.
------------------
Regards
Keith