| 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
AP VS BP
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Dave Einsel, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Houston | TX | United States | Posted: 10:26 AM on 05.27.10 |
->> Absolutely outrageous!
At what point did private companies get the authority to close airspace over open water, deny access to public land and appear to get away with it?
Do you think those fishermen working for BP signed a "no sue" contract?
Most depressing. |
|
Dave Prelosky, Photographer
|
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 10:33 AM on 05.27.10 |
->> Anyone remember the movie Rollerball? As in the corporations controlled the government?
I'm not a conspiracy fan, but there are certain similar aspects.. |
|
Chris Pondy, Photographer
|
Anthem | AZ | United States | Posted: 10:39 AM on 05.27.10 |
->> They can pretty much do whatever they want until a paper or individual sues them for a violation of their constitutional rights. But by then, it won't matter because the spill will be over and BP won't fight it. I am sure they know what they are doing is wrong, but they also know the stalling tactic will prevent major coverage for the time being which is really what they want to do.
Chris |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 11:36 AM on 05.27.10 |
| ->> but perhaps the AP the Times-Pic, the networks and other interested parties could go for a restraining order directing at least the Coast Guard not to deny access. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:31 PM on 05.27.10 |
| ->> I wonder how that charter boat captain quoted at the end of the article will feel next year when the Gulf is dead and he has no business at all. It's kind of reprehensible that he takes the side of BP just because he's lining his pockets with cash right now.... |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 2:57 PM on 05.27.10 |
| ->> Why is this described as a "British Petroleum photo blockade" when it is the United States Coast Guard that is reportedly enforcing it? |
|
Derek Montgomery, Photographer
|
Duluth | MN | USA | Posted: 3:04 PM on 05.27.10 |
| ->> Michael, I think it's because the general consensus is that the Coast Guard/Government and BP are working hand-in-hand here. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 3:11 PM on 05.27.10 |
| ->> If that is the case, then it would seem that "United States Government photo blockade" is a more interesting headline. Why even bother with a headline that suggests that a privately owned company is engaging in tactics to control their corporate image? People have come to expect this sort of behavior from corporations, but having the United States Coast Guard acting as a hired security force seems like a much bigger story to me. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 5:52 PM on 05.27.10 |
->> BP is the 4th largest company in the world with profits (last year) of $14billion.
AP is worth a small fraction of that.
BP can s**t all over AP and not worry in the slightest. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
SLC | UT | USA | Posted: 6:32 PM on 05.27.10 |
->> AP isn't going to do anything.
If they wanted, they could rent a private plane, ignore the order and fight the charges in court.
But they won't. AP and most other papers just whine about it but fail to stand up for their rights. It is sad really. |
|
Derek Montgomery, Photographer
|
Duluth | MN | USA | Posted: 6:57 PM on 05.27.10 |
->> For the person who gave me the "huh" read the first paragraph of the linked article in the first post above or I can quote it here...
"As BP makes its latest attempt to plug its gushing oil well, news photographers are complaining that their efforts to document the slow-motion disaster in the Gulf of Mexico are being thwarted by local and federal officials—working with BP—who are blocking access to the sites where the effects of the spill are most visible. More than a month into the disaster, a host of anecdotal evidence is emerging from reporters, photographers, and TV crews in which BP and Coast Guard officials explicitly target members of the media, restricting and denying them access to oil-covered beaches, staging areas for clean-up efforts, and even flyovers."
What they are saying is it is likely a cooperative effort between federal officials (government) and BP to make media access difficult. |
|
Matthew Bush, Photographer
|
Hattiesburg | MS | USA | Posted: 7:22 PM on 05.27.10 |
| ->> Mike- The Times-Pic did charter a private plane, that is what they are referring to in the story. They were not granted access to the spill site because a shooter was on the flight. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
SLC | UT | USA | Posted: 1:56 AM on 05.28.10 |
->> So the Times-Pic should march into Federal Court and enforce its rights.
If it doesn't, shame on them.
If you are going to claim to be a watchdog you are going to have to spend a few bucks to show your bite is as bad as your bark.
When is the last time a paper actually stood up for its rights? |
|
Shelly Castellano, Assistant, Photo Editor
|
Huntington Beach | CA | USA | Posted: 2:01 AM on 05.28.10 |
->> Nobody can stop Jacques Cousteau's Grandson Philippe from visual story telling. These images are horrific. CNN showed the still images on TV already.
http://tinyurl.com/2wdpnru
Here is a link to his blog http://www.earthecho.org/blog/
This ocean disaster is ugly stuff, really, really bad and getting worse everyday. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 10:47 AM on 05.28.10 |
->> Mike,
"When is the last time a paper actually stood up for its rights?"
It happens quite often. The AP and many individual newspapers and broadcast companies go to court over access issues all the time.
--Mark |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
SLC | UT | USA | Posted: 9:31 AM on 05.29.10 |
->> Mark,
Can you cite a case?
I often hear papers complain but I don't remember the last time AP or a paper pursued it. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:01 PM on 05.29.10 |
| ->> We do it all the time. We actually forced the State to turn over all emails (which are public info) from the executive branch to various state agencies and uncovered a boatload of corruption which has now spooled into federal indictments against a ton of politicos. |
|
Craig Mitchelldyer, Photographer, Assistant
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 2:11 PM on 05.29.10 |
| ->> The Oregonian did it a couple weeks ago to gain access to contracts between Nike and the UO Athletic Dept. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 7:51 PM on 05.29.10 |
->> Mike,
No, I didn't, but there are a number of references here:
http://www.rcfp.org/
--Mark |
|
Matthew Bush, Photographer
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:00 AM on 05.30.10 |
->> Here is another example. Our state press association and state press photographers association filed a lawsuit against our state prep sport association. In the end, both sides agreed to a binding settlement.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=28983 |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 9:08 AM on 05.30.10 |
->> There are legitimate reasons for some restrictions and access coordination both by air and by boat for safety reasons: You have a lot of vessels in one area doing legitimate work. From an FAA standpoint it's easier to just create a no-fly zone below a certain altitude. Sea vessels need similar restrictions to keep the folks doing cleanup work safe.
But the "safety" excuse is frequently abused by people who don't want you to see stuff, or who are just lazy. How many of us have been pushed back to ridiculous distances at fires or hostage situations for "security" reasons? For law enforcement, it's the perfect defense: We're not being bad guys, we just don't want anyone to get hurt.
For the Gulf spill, I give them a bit of a pass early on because it was a big, unknown mess and nobody knew what could potentially happen. But now, there is absolutely no reason this late in the game for law enforcement (FAA and Coast Guard) to not have established procedures for granting PRIVATE operators access to the site, and there's no reason for restricting access to public beaches or wetlands.
Ridealongs are not access. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
SLC | UT | USA | Posted: 7:59 PM on 06.01.10 |
->> Thanks for the examples.
Sorry I have been away for the holiday.
Keep up the good work. Hopefully, the press will gain the access they need to tell this story properly. |
|
Dan Megna, Photographer
|
Coronado | CA | USA | Posted: 9:50 PM on 06.04.10 |
->> Here's an interesting personal experience; During the week of May 10th, another photographer and I were in Port Fourchon, LA, working on a photo project with a commercial helicopter operator, but unrelated to the oil spill. We arrived around 8am. Our project was put on hold for a few hours while the operator launched and recovered a few flights. During that time we were allowed access to the flight line with our cameras.
About 11:30am, two gentlemen slithered into the building and asked for the operations manager. They quietly identified themselves as working for BP and asked what plans the operator had for "the guys with the cameras." We were told the men "cautioned" the operator about flying us to within view of the spill.
How they know we were there? No clue? But it was a very low key and crystal clear warning to the operator to keep the cameras clear of the spill area.
As a commercial pilot, I have a very good grasp of the rules of TFRs, ( Temporary Flight Restrictions). There were/are a few legal ways to gain access to these areas. It's can be as simple as filing a flight plan. But, it was obvious, the sight of us with cameras created a yellow flag for someone. And someone wanted to make sure the operator was aware access for us was discouraged. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:52 PM on 06.04.10 |
| ->> screw BP. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
