| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
TV Journalistic Ethics Question
Daniel Bersak, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Bedford | NH | | Posted: 1:51 AM on 05.14.03 |
->> Hello-
The Jason Blair fiasco has gotten me thinking about journalistic ethics and a question that's been rolling around my head over the past month. While shooting the Boston Marathon, I got a pre-race shot of workers hanging the time clocks at the finish line. As I was shooting, a TV crew rambled up and asked the workers to take the clocks down and put them up again so that they could go live in 5 minutes. Is this kosher? Are there different rules for still photography/motion photography?
--Dan
PS- In the end, the workers didn't want to undo their work and the TV crew missed the shot. You can see one of the clocks in question in my member gallery. While you're there, please send feedback! |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 2:22 AM on 05.14.03 |
->> TV "Journalism" ... and ethics?
Some TV news personnel haven't seen something that wasn't worth having the subject do ..over and over and over again. Kind of like Ed Wood directing a scene from Plan 9 From Outer Space ... "Ok ..scene 2, take 82 ... ACTION!"
While I was aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln recently, I saw the Today Show "reporter" doing a stand-up in front of about a dozen sailors she and her producer had posed behind her. They had the sailors gather their bags and move them to sit on and then had 4 of them playing cards and another one strumming a guitar.
It looked so real!
NOT!!!
TV news has a very different ... standard ... for ethics. Is the "Today Show" NEWS or is it ENTERTAINMENT?
But now that is not to say that still shooters haven't done questionable things as well.
I guess what I am taking so much room to say is ...ethics these days seems to be whatever it is you can live with (or maybe get away with) . Whether it's Photoshopping a news photo (the guy was fired); fabricating sources, quotes and stories (the guy resigned under fire) or conduct yourself questionably in a college lighting class (he was put on a leave of absence ... but is being sued by a student).
Common sense. Knowing what is right and wrong. Simple advice to live by in my mind ...
The Big Kahuna. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
 |
Tucson | AZ | USA | Posted: 3:28 PM on 05.15.03 |
| ->> Bert makes some excellent points here. The truth of the matter is your average TV viewer doesn't care. People associate television production of any sort with takes and retakes. |
|
Ed J. Szalajeski, Photographer
 |
Yarmouth | ME | USA | Posted: 3:55 PM on 05.15.03 |
->> So what is the difference between a ”News" show that has a surrounding of Entertainment and the NY Times front page.
They are trying to tell a story accurately, why do they get a pass to stage something if it is staged?
For that matter, is a News Magazine show (NBC’s Dateline, FoxNews’s G-Block, CBS’s 48-hours), news or entertainment?
If I recall correctly the Today Show, gets away with using pictures as a whole, as editorial, and under fair use being a news organization of types?
Just adding discussion to this interesting topic.
Best regards
Ed J Szalajeski |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer
 |
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 4:03 PM on 05.15.03 |
->> It seems that TV ethics is more subjective to the reporter. My dad is a reporter for a national network, and wouldn't dream of setting people up for background scenery like Bert described. I remember watching a story with him about 10 years ago when people were starting to get mad about snowmobiles in Yellowstone, and the NBC reporter had a bunch of snowmobiles going around him on the trail while he did his stand-up, and my dad talked about how that reporter had no integrity.
When I was in college, I shot video at the NBC affiliate for three hours of credit, and some of the reporters I worked with had no idea that it was wrong to set up something and pass it off as journalism. This usually led to long discussions in the car ride back to the station, but I think there is more of a temptation to set things up for TV when you need all the extra equipment (huge camera, set of lights, microphones, tripod...). We carry a couple bodies with a flash and a camera bag. We can do things more efficiently than video people can, and I think that leads to the willingness of some to cut corners. |
|
Daniel Bersak, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Bedford | NH | | Posted: 5:46 PM on 05.15.03 |
->> Hey-
Editorial use does include opinion/political humor... A close family friend is in the Air Force and, in addition to his regular duties, is sometimes asked to play the bagpipes at various functions. One time when he was piping for President Clinton in the Rose Garden, an AP photographer got a shot where a pipe from the bagpipes was perfectly lined up with Clinton's crotch... That night, Letterman superimposed Monica Lewinsky's head over our friend's and had quite a bit of fun. Since that falls under political humor, I think it's still editorial use.
On the original topic, is there even in infrastructure or culture that punishes errant video journalists? A New York Times photographer poses a shot of a child with a gun and all hell breaks loose (see link below). It seems like TV does the same all the time and nobody cares.
While on the subject of TV personnel, are the television news people in Boston particularly rude, or are they all like that? I've been elbowed out of the way by high-strung producers, told to move by cameramen ("I want that shot. It has to be on the 6:00 news."), and watched crews march right into a quiet peace vigil and interview everyone in sight. I even saw one guy go retrieve his microphone from a podium while a press conference was still in progress and while the key speaker was still speaking. He then wandered around the room for 10 minutes and got B roll, noisily collapsed his tripod, unplugged his lights, and slammed the door when he left. I also had a reporter try to pull me off the back of a truck during a protest march. Is all of this normal? Not once have I seen a media still photographer be anything other than professional.
--Dan
http://www.cjr.org/year/02/6/nytphoto.asp |
|
Bryan Oller, Photographer
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 5:56 PM on 05.15.03 |
->> Michael,
It drives me nearly insane to see TV folks manipulate a situation. Everytime I have to cover a news event I cringe because you can be sure one or two of the local stations will set something up that changes the situation somewhat, if not completely. I know it happens often and many of us have seen it, but nevertheless, it still pisses me off. I know their gear is heavy but some things are just unexcusable when it comes to this business of ethics. I had observed this one photographer on several occasions disrupt people and ask them to do whatever they were doing over as to get a better shot. She would even hold yellow police tape in front of her camera so that she wouldn't have to lower it while at crime scenes. It drove me crazy becuause I would never do such a thing. And then I recently had a discussion with a TV photog while at a funeral for a soldier killed in Iraq. He was her co-worker. Much to my pleasant surprise she does not shoot anymore because of her ethics issues. He told me the station no longer tolerates that. I was noticing him taking the camera off a tripod and shooting odd and interesting angled shots while all the others stood elbow to elbow shooting the exact same thing (not that that was a wrong thing), with their cameras on tripods. He just struck me as somewhat different. Turns out he used to be a still photographer. It's promising so see some of these guys do the right thing. I know many TV photogs are ethical, it's just that a few don't really seem to care. They are the ones I just shake my head at. And that's a good thing because in the past, I would just try to pull my hair out and then I started getting tired of my scalp hurting. |
|
Alex Jones, Photographer, Student/Intern
 |
Austin | TX | USA | Posted: 12:01 AM on 05.16.03 |
| ->> According to my Video Journalism professor, you can tell someone to go back and do something over again if it's "something they normally do" like walk in the door of their office building or something along those lines. This is useful in getting a reverse angle shot to cut to. Do I do this when shooting video? No. The way I see it, any direction of a subject is unethical, end of story. If I missed it, that's my own fault. |
|
Jeff Frings, Photographer
 |
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 12:37 AM on 05.16.03 |
->> Bert,
You said, "TV news has a very different ... standard ... for ethics."
I have to disagree. I am a journalist, same as you and most everyone else on this site. I shoot both video and still photos. Just because I shoot more video than stills does not mean, "I have a different standard of ethics" than still photogs.
I have seen just as many still photogs posing subjects as TV photogs manipulating a situation.
It is unethical to change the course of a news story to get better pictures no matter which media you shoot with.
Dan, If you have never seen a still photog act unprofessionally on a news story, you are luckier than I am. I have seen both act unprofessional. I think lumping all TV photogs together and blaming all of us/them for the misdeeds of one or a few, would be unprofessional. So to answer your question, No not all TV photogs are like this, this is not normal. |
|
Robert Beck, Photographer
 |
Carlsbad | CA | USA | Posted: 12:56 AM on 05.16.03 |
| ->> Just to honk in here...My favorite is when all the turds scream "Kiss the trophy! Kiss the trophy!" Why not put it on your head? Can my friend hold it? Why not give it to me for a while? Hey, do a magic trick with it! |
|
Vincent Laforet, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 1:28 AM on 05.16.03 |
->> Jeff -
Simply put - the average network tv "journalist" has no knowledge of ETHICS - they can't even spell it.
I'd like to say it were different.
But it ain't.
They succumb far too easily to the deadline/live pressures put on them.
We don't.
That's why we'll be employed for awhile.
I can't tell you how often I've seen television producers/reporters not only fudge the ethical let alone moral line...
They don't fudge - they completely ignore it.
Not all - but the majority.
By far. |
|
Owen C. Shaw, Photographer
|
Mission Viejo | CA | USA | Posted: 4:05 AM on 05.16.03 |
| ->> And there in lies the beauty of still photography. We capture the moment as it happens. You either get it or you don't. That play at the plate, you won't get them to recreate it.Or create it. But my stuff with my L1 & Final Cut Pro I too have smudged a bit. It's a different medium & should be treated as such. |
|
Jeff Frings, Photographer
|
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 9:25 AM on 05.16.03 |
->> Vince,
I, having worked in "local" TV news for almost 15 years, can say that the "average" local TV journalist does, in fact have a knowledge of ethics and also knows how to spell it.
I think what causes those TV "journalists" who lack ethics to act the way they do, at least in my experience, has little to do with deadline pressure or the fact that they have to do live reports.
Some are so blinded by their ambitions to "make it big" and get to a network or major market station, that they will do anything to make a story look better.
I know many still photogs on this site and message board have seen things that make them dislike tv "camera pointers". I sincerely ask you to, when you see a "tv camera pointer" doing something wrong, to help those of us who are ethical journalists.
Please call the bosses of those TV folks you see that are not being ethical or professional. Those people are not the norm, nor should they be allowed to continue to give the rest of the profession a bad name.
In the accounts I have read about the writer for the NY times, part of the reason he was caught is because other journalists called his bosses to complain about him being unethical. Please do the same if you see an unethical TV employee.
Owen, you added, "It's a different medium & should be treated as such." I disagree, journalistic ethical standards are not variable depending on the media we use to record our pictures. We as journalists are supposed to be showing the public what happened at a given story. We are the publics' eyes and ears and we CAN'T distort what we show them for any reason no matter which media we work with/for.
Please, I implore all of you, do not form your opinion of all TV photogs based on the unethical "TV camera pointers".
If you see me or one of my colleagues on the street shooting with a TV camera, assume that we are ethical, until or unless you see us do otherwise. I have a good relationship with many still photogs in my market and I know a couple other TV photogs in the market who also shoot stills for a newspaper on the side.
As I have said before on this message board, we, TV and still photogs, are not as different as many think. We are different in some ways and that is why I think we can learn from each other, but in the end we are both supposed to be photographers, we both are supposed to be journalists.
The majority of both types of media are both, photographers and journalists, I hope we can remember that when we have these discussions and when we see each other on the street.
Jeff |
|
Keith Simonian, Photographer
 |
Lafayette | CA | USA | Posted: 9:50 AM on 05.16.03 |
->> My TV ethics question.
It was a night football game at Stanford several years ago. It was a night game because TV was broadcasting it. Because of the time of year and the time of the game, there was a lot of moisture on the field. (no rain, just moisture)
Any way, the wet field was slippery, and players were slipping.
So the sideline reporter wants to let everybody know about the water on the field. So they cut to the sideline guy (some ex pro player), he reaches down to the field, rubs his hand on it, and it comes up wet and dripping with water. He proclaims this is why the players are slipping.
Here's the problem, right before the shot was done, he poured bottled water where he was going to rub the field.
The still photographers watching it happen were certainly amazed. But we figured it was sports TV, and they could do anything they wanted. |
|
Vincent Laforet, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 12:26 PM on 05.16.03 |
->> Jeff -
I hear you and understand where you are coming from. Everything you say is correct and well intended.
Unfortunately - I can't say I agree w/ you in terms of the television crews I've seen out there.
I would agree that local tv stations do tend to adhere to ethics and morals much more closely than do national broadcasters. And I did make a much too general statement above - you're right - 75% of all TV journalists do take ethics seriously. But the 25% take it so far out of whack it's pretty horendous - and give them all a bad name. Look at the water bottle example in the thread above. That's nothing compared to what I've witnessed on big national stories. Time and time again. That's the sad part.
I would say this : pass along to your TV colleagues that they need to stop treating us like insignificant and irrelevant. I can't tell you how often I've had a television person say: you're stills - we're TV. We pay for the rights and can do whatever we want. Move out of that spot you've been staking out for 5 hours...we need to put a camera person there - oh and two other of you photogs - we need you to move too to put an idiot who holds the cord and who jumps up and down at every good play to block everyone else. We're live -and we're all that matter. Nobody is here but us. Don't even argue with us - or we'll have you escorted out of here. WE OWN THIS PLACE. Think I'm exaggerating... just ask others on this site. I doubt you'll get many people to say I'm wrong.
Last night a tv guy came into our hockey box - 15 seconds before the start of play. Had everyone move back - and the was leaning the entire time in front of all of us. He didn't even try to work with us. Then he insisted on leaving the box with 1 minute left (to go stand in line for the locker room stuff) and caused us to all get up and be unable to shoot the final moments of the game. Funny thing is: he was working for a Canadian FEATURE station that was doing a story on the coach... and he wasn't even shooting game action in some of the most valuable spots in the arean - he screwed Reuters, NYT, The Star Ledger (which attends every game of the season in the spot he hijacked and send 3 to 4 people to playoff games) and two other photographers - just to get 30 seconds of footage of a coach.... doesn't seem fair does it?
Point is: this is not an isolated incident - or a rare jerk. 90% of television people act this way towards us - mabe 10% appreciate what we do and respect it - and if those odds were evened out a bit - maybe we'd all get along a bit better. |
|
Vincent Laforet, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 12:46 PM on 05.16.03 |
->> All - I want to take a step back and say I went a little overboard last night with the posts. Wrote the post last night after a bad experience w/ TV. I was definitely making generalizations - in a lighthearted way - but I think it was incorrect to do so - because I know it's unfair to all of the hard-working, ethical tv journalists out there. (No I'm not trying to be glib in making that statement.)
Jeff the numbers are on your side and I was making a generalization and it wasn't fair. I meant it to be slightly lighthearted... want to keep these posts "fun." But perhaps I chose the wrong topic to do so un.
Unfortunately I can't tell you how horribly appalled I am to see what networks do - almost every time I'm on a national assignment. Stuff I can't even dare publish it's so ugly. And they're so horrible arrogant and condescending to their colleagues and MORE importantly to the COMMUNITIES they cover - on such a consistent basis.. it seems they only care about a. beating everyone else w/exclusive and by breaking it first and b. their egos. For example the start of the air-war was announced from the carrier live on CNN - it was total speculation at that point - and completly incorrect... not to mention it put the pilots at risk by putting it out live as they were taking off!
CNN outright lied about us being 80 miles away from San Diego and the ship being out of helicopter range (when the president visitied the carrier)... we were 30 miles off and EVERYONE knew it... the white house said "shh" and CNN bought it... a helo's rand is over 500miles... they lie time in and time out.
I was exaggerating and doing no good by generalizing - but I'm still appalled by what I witness on an almost daily basis - and I'm very sorry to say that. I apologize for taking it out on those of you, in the majority, who make a serious effort to counter-balance those trends.
I should know how that feels - as the Jason Blair episode -has put us in those shoes recently...
sincerely,
Vince |
|
Daniel Bersak, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Bedford | NH | | Posted: 1:02 PM on 05.16.03 |
->> Jeff-
I didn't mean to imply that still photographers are never unethical - I just haven't seen any blatant ethics violations here in Boston.
To be fair, it does cost a media company a whole hell of a lot more money to send a TV crew to cover an event than it does to send a still photographer. Most news stations own their own cameras, lights, vans, etc. Why don't we still photographers get our own news vans...? :-) I know some newspapers have pool gear, but a lot of photogs use their own cameras/lights/cars for assignments. I guess the added cost for video must turn up the pressure somewhat. Though that might be an explanation, it's certainly not an excuse.
On the topic of calling errant videographers' bosses, I think it's a good idea, but I'd be uncomfortable doing it as a freelancer. I wouldn't want to misrepresent or reflect poorly upon the agency/wire/newspaper I'm working for. Anyone else have any thoughts?
--Dan |
|
David G. McIntyre, Photographer
 |
Hong Kong | ** | China | Posted: 1:02 PM on 05.16.03 |
->> The nice thing about photography is that we can record a moment as it happens. Stills don't have to say: "Please let this moment happen at 5:07pm so that we have it live with our reporter standing up in front of it."
We all face deadlines, but if it doesn't happen when we want it to then it might run a day later. |
|
Ed J. Szalajeski, Photographer
|
Yarmouth | ME | USA | Posted: 2:04 PM on 05.16.03 |
->> To me, staging something, as keith pointed out with his water example, is no different than what the LA Times photographer did.
Jeff: DId you get a picture of the tail hook landing, and the others coming off the plane? More importantly did anyone publish it? In that case the event feed the media. |
|
Jeff Frings, Photographer
|
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 2:09 PM on 05.16.03 |
->> Vince and Dan,
Thanks for the posts, and I apologize if I took some of your comments to personally. I too am appalled at some of the things I see TV "journalists" do. I could tell you stories of outright lying as well.
Vince, I can't speak to the networks as well as you can, but I do know where you are coming from with the networks shooting sports. The local TV folks are stuck behind the networks and NFL films just like the still guys. I'm sorry about your experience with the hockey shoot. I think you all should have ganged up on the TV guy and told him to get lost.
I really do try and whenever possible, "pass along to your TV colleagues that they need to stop treating us like insignificant and irrelevant" I certainly don't think still guys are either of those things. I want to be one of the still guys. I enjoy still and video, and I know of a still guy in my market that shoots video. We have talked about the difference and similarities and how we can work better together on shoots.
I know there are TV guys who are as**h*les, and I think after your posts, that at least you guys don't lump me and my ethical, professional colleagues with the as**h*les.
Thanks again for the posts
Jeff |
|
David G. McIntyre, Photographer
|
Hong Kong | ** | China | Posted: 7:36 PM on 05.16.03 |
->> Let's not talk bad about them, but treat them like fellow shooters, and working media. If we are nice to them like we are with other still photogs, maybe we can make a change.
If they persist on not cooperating, lets just go up to them in a nice fashion and say: "I think your being a little out of line."
You can only make a situation worse if two people act irrational, but better if one makes an effort to set an example of how it should be.
I know that over the years there have been bad experiences with TV folks, but when I used to work in Arizona for the paper I made great friends with many of the TV station and network guys and things worked out pretty well. The main problem I had was the guy holding the dish microphone at football games. But overall it worked well to be mean with kindness.
Lets let them know that Sportsshooter photographers are also hardworking, but also polite. You never know when you might run into that person in the future and you might be able to make them a friend that can help you out sometime. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
Canon EOS 1D Mark IV Digital SLR Camera
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $4999.95 |
Notes:
Call Samy's for a special SportsShooter.com price. (Not the price listed here.) You MUST mention the website for the special deal. Call: 866-726-9463. Don't buy through the website - CALL instead.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|