| 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
Reuters, AP photojournalists describe staging of Obama photo
Mike Hanson, Photographer
|
Jack Megaw, Photographer
 |
Pittsburgh | PA | America | Posted: 11:03 PM on 05.04.11 |
->> Even if it is stated in the caption that the picture is taken after the statement was made it still crosses the line into being unethical for me. The picture is staged and is made to look as if it is the real thing.
I wonder if the White House has ever heard of the sound blimp? http://www.aquatech.net/sound-blimps.php
-Jack |
|
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 11:13 PM on 05.04.11 |
| ->> I understand the White House not wanting a bumch of shutter clicks coming over the video feed. But you'd think they could allow a single pool photographer armed with a Leica in to get an official shot. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 12:53 AM on 05.05.11 |
| ->> The prompter is in the way. Being quiet won't fix the problem. |
|
Christopher Szagola, Photographer
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 1:10 AM on 05.05.11 |
->> Being the technological wizards they are, I'm fairly certain, in this day and age, the White House broadcasts these addresses in high definition, and I would also assume there's a technological wizard working at the Associated Press who could pull a still frame from said address that would be of sufficient quality to reproduce in newsprint.
Or maybe I'm daydreaming... |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 9:15 AM on 05.05.11 |
->> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that this is kind of a non-issue.
[hold on; let me finish]
In the annals of photojournalism, I'd say that there is no assignment more fundamentally loathed than the press conference; ribbon cuttings are a close second.
And yes, I get it, this was a super historic moment ... ya but still, press conference.
How many of us have been at one of these things where the "rules of the house" are wildly absurd (you can only shoot from here, for the first 15 seconds, and we get to have sex with your wives later)? It comes with the territory. If you want the photo and the desk back home couldn't convince flaks otherwise, you're doing the wildly absurd thing.
And ya, I get it, this is the American government ... land of the free, home of the brave, ramparts gallantly streaming. But, it's still their house, their rules.
And AP, etc. covered their ass in the cutline. If newspapers across the states saw that and chose to phrase the content differently, that's their problem, not the wires.
Last thing -- at least the administration let them get the walk photo, which according to the Poynter article was a break from the norm.
Pressers. Ugh.
[retches] |
|
Erik Markov, Photographer
|
anywhere | IN | | Posted: 9:29 AM on 05.05.11 |
| ->> It's a couple of the comments at the site that kind of frighten me. There's arguing about journalism and ethics, but some of those people are more interested in talking about the "lone gunman in the grass on the hill." it's a shame when there isn't enough anti-psychotic medication to go around. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 9:59 AM on 05.05.11 |
->> "I'm fairly certain, in this day and age, the White House broadcasts these addresses in high definition, and I would also assume there's a technological wizard working at the Associated Press who could pull a still frame from said address that would be of sufficient quality to reproduce in newsprint"
That's usually the first still sent out over the wire, followed by a better quality still taken after-the-fact. It's been that way for decades. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 10:24 AM on 05.05.11 |
| ->> The often overlooked liberty in Freedom of The Press is the right not to print something. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 10:28 AM on 05.05.11 |
->> @Mark - Thanks for the link. I suppose that raises the question even further; why does AP need a still photo that's re-created if they can have a still from the video of the actual speech? Do they just want a still of Obama with his mouth open?
Jim - sure, this has been done for decades, but doesn't today's HD video produce a still of sufficient quality for most reproduction purposes? |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 10:34 AM on 05.05.11 |
->> Yeah, you've always been out on a limb.
Seriously, what's the point of standing around outside waiting to go in to take a staged photo like this? Using a mug previously shot and saving on hours makes more sense than playing this game. What is different about this photo situation than the previous hundred? None. It's a different reason why you're there, but the images look identical Don't play their game and your ethics will remain intact.
If the President is touring tornado damaged areas in the South and then has an impromptu press conference, that I would say is much different, especially when they or anybody else is not dictating how or when to shoot. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 10:36 AM on 05.05.11 |
->> Bradly,
Because it is the president, because it is big news, because the quality is still much better -- you want your own record of the event the best way you can get it.
By your logic why do we cover any sporting event if we can just get a frame grab off the HD? We really don't want to go down that road and set that precedent anywhere.
It used to be commonplace when I did WH duty years ago that when the president would do his radio address there would (obviously) be no TV cameras and stills would be brought in for a few seconds (seriously, like 11 seconds from enter the door to exit the door) to get a few shots of him behind the desk. The captions always read "after the president delivered his weekly radio address" and never said "as he delivers." They didn't want the shutter clicks on the radio broadcast but if what he was saying was big news and papers would run a story then there would be some art with it.
And, G.J. has a great point. It is simply a guy at the podium and is not usually the "image of the day" but in this instance there was no other art to run so you had to have a still of the president in some form. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 11:09 AM on 05.05.11 |
->> accepting the handout, in whatever form it takes, is still questionable. The need for the free and independent press to remain so is what is important.
I see now that MSNBC has said it won't run images from these faked speeches. That's a good start. Time for everyone to do the same. Take what photos you can. Lobby for access with a silent camera, but stop enabling the culture of control of the press by accepting the practice just because it's what's always been done. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 11:28 AM on 05.05.11 |
->> "...doesn't today's HD video produce a still of sufficient quality for most reproduction purposes..."
Perhaps, but why find yet another excuse to lay off a staff photographer? |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 12:46 PM on 05.05.11 |
->> Most news services do not run White House handouts when they feel coverage could have been done by their own shooters.
For instance, they will not run a photo of the president greeting someone in the Oval Office when press could have been given a photo-op inside or of a greeting outside the oval or West Wing.
But for images such as the ones from the situation room from the night of the raid is different, because the high security means no press would have been allowed in no matter what.
And how many photos have you seen of an athlete kissing a trophy or medal. Want to guess how many are spontaneous and how many are from a photographer shouting "kiss the medal!" I'm betting 100 percent on the latter. So, if you are a photographer shooting a golf tournament and during the trophy presentation someone yells "kiss the trophy" and the winner obliges, do you not transmit the photo knowing it was a set up or do you run it knowing 37 other photographers will be sending it out? Why do I ask that? Because it is a staged piece of a real event. Same as being debated here. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 1:22 PM on 05.05.11 |
->> "By your logic why do we cover any sporting event if we can just get a frame grab off the HD? We really don't want to go down that road and set that precedent anywhere."
George, with all due respect, that's a pretty laughable analogy and hardly the same thing. It's not as if photographers are not allowed at the World Series, but then are brought in after the event and the players re-create key plays for them.
I can understand why no photographers are allowed in the room during the speech. My question is why would a news outlet use a photo (or even agree to take photos) from a re-creation when a perfectly usable still from a video of the actual event will serve the same purpose.
@Jim - So you're saying photojournalists should toss ethics out the window and concede to shooting mock speeches for the sake of keeping their jobs?
I fully agree with George that there are special circumstances for which the use of WH handout photos, such as the one from the Situation Room, is acceptable, because the situation dictated that an independent journalist could not have been present. Just like I think a still from the HD feed of the actual speech would be acceptable over using a staged photo, because the situation dictated an independent journalist could not have been present at the actual speech. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 2:33 PM on 05.05.11 |
->> "So you're saying photojournalists should toss ethics out the window..."
There's no ethical lapse if the photo caption correctly describes when and how the picture was taken.
Then there's the whole "share a laugh" thing... |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 2:44 PM on 05.05.11 |
->> Bradly,
Since in the past leagues have tried to limit access and tried to squeeze out agencies, cut exclusive deals etc. I stand by my use of the term "precedent".
One time, many years ago, when the NBA first had its staff shooters switching to digital they tossed around the idea of excluding all media and only doing handouts by their staffers. Thankfully it went no where.
But, you really don't want any sports league to be able to say "well, you take frame grabs of the president all the time, why can't you just take some from the game?"
Use of White House images carries a lot of weight and precedents set there can carry over into other areas. We don't want that option.
And, BTW, you don't know how many times I've heard the producer for NBC's Triple Crown races tell the still photographers on our walk-thru day "don't worry, I know what pictures you are looking for. As soon as we finish our shots, we'll turn the horse around so you can get what you need." -- and lots of still shooters can testify that Billy uses that line every year.
So, is that a set up shot we should all avoid or do we have to send our clients that image of the horse and jockey or risk having clients say "well, I got this image from other services and not yours, so I guess I'll cancel my subscription." I don't know of any photo service, AP included, that wants to hear that in these economic times. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 3:13 PM on 05.05.11 |
->> And still photographers being shut out of Republican debate in South Carolina.
http://wapo.st/jW9DHF
They would have had an even better argument if they could have said "Well you took Obama's statement on bin Laden off TV with no stills:
You don't want to set the precedent. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 4:13 PM on 05.05.11 |
->> I still think you're talking apples and oranges when comparing a sports league to the White House, and need to consider these things in a case-by-case basis.
If a sports league said to me, "well, you take frame grabs of the president all the time, why can't you just take some from the game?" I'd simply reply that the White House had a very legitimate reason for not allowing still photographers in the room making shutter noises during a live speech informing the nation that the most wanted terrorist in American history had been killed. It's hard to imagine a league providing a legitimate reason for denying an organization like the Associated Press access to a football game, though I do understand they've tried and continue to try.
"And still photographers being shut out of Republican debate in South Carolina."
Again, case-by-case basis, and to me this comes down to Fox News wanting exclusivity and the RNC wanting to control information, which are not, in my mind, legitimate reasons to deny access. And, in this case, the argument that a still was taken from Obama's speech informing the nation bin Laden was killed also isn't legit, because that speech is hardly comparable to a presidential debate.
Now, if you want to talk precedent, what if the RNC said, "We don't want shutters clicking during the live broadcast of this presidential debate, so we'll have the candidates pretend to debate after the event for a few minutes so you can get some photos." Would you find that acceptable? |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 7:27 PM on 05.05.11 |
->> this from the NPPA Ethics Committee chair John Long:
“If it looks real, in the context of news, it has to be real," Long said today in response to the news. "A faked photograph is a visual lie; it deceives the reader. Captioning these photos accurately is essential – but in the final analysis these photos look as though the President is speaking and in reality, he is not, making the images themselves visual lies.” |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 7:40 PM on 05.05.11 |
->> Loundy probably had the best, most concise thought in the comments section of the Reuters blog post:
http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/2011/05/02/ready-to-record-history/
"Why does the White House Press corps not refuse to shoot re-enactments? No number of disclaimers is going to prevent misleading viewers into thinking that they’re looking at the real event. –Mark Loundy Twitter: @MarkLoundy" |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 9:26 PM on 05.05.11 |
->> "I still think you're talking apples and oranges when comparing a sports league to the White House"
Then you would be, IMHO, wrong. It's about access and precedent.
Ivory towers being what they are, it helps to have been there and done that. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 9:29 PM on 05.05.11 |
->> "Why does the White House Press corps not refuse to shoot re-enactments?"
Staffer's Response: "I like my job."
Freelancer's Response: "I'd like to have another paying gig in this town some day soon." |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 10:07 PM on 05.05.11 |
->> Irrespective of how it has been done in the past, I wonder if new technology might be the answer as we move forward. I mean, I can understand why they wouldn't want a dozen DSLRs cranking out frames during the speech (even the 5dMKII's shutter is fairly loud), but has anyone demonstrated to the White House just how quiet these new four thirds cameras are on silent mode? Even a point and shoot with the shutter sound turned off can produce an acceptable file under nice light.
I imagine that it would cost almost nothing to have all the shooters in the press corp throw a cheapy 4:3 camera in their locker.
Even if the image quality is not as good as a DSLR, I know I'd rather have an authentic image of the president during the actual speech (taken with a lesser camera) than a really "pretty" file of a reenactment from a nicer camera.
Thoughts? George?
That being said, I actually like the shutter sounds when listening to press conferences on the radio. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 8:22 AM on 05.06.11 |
->> Brian,
A case could be made. I think part of the reasoning from the WH is that the set up was different than a normal news conference. The teleprompter set up meant no still could be head-on, or close to it. The WH wanted the image of the president speaking directly into the TV camera, eye to eye with the viewer, so the prompters were closer than normal and there was no room to put still photographers without it being profile.
That being said, a live profile or off angle photo shot with a 4:3 and then maybe a head on afterwards is a better option. At least something is live and stills are in the room.
And, on another argument here, this may sound like apples and oranges because the events seem very different, however this is about access, not the subject.
Like it or not, how the WH operates has an effect on coverage elsewhere. The WH is seen as the pinnacle of our country and government. Political candidates base media access on how the WH operates with media pools, travel policies, access times etc. This, in turn, means others see that and think "hey, that's a great way to operate." Truthfully, I've heard people from all sorts of events ask or refer to how the WH handles press when giving reasoning on how their event should be covered. And not just in politics.
Setting the precedent ANYWHERE that it is acceptable for print publications to simply take a few frame grabs means it will start carrying over. Whether it be at the WH or NFL draft day or the World Series or even the College World Series. Once it is accepted somewhere it will slowly be accepted everywhere. With their rules you could see the Masters trying it some time, they already keep stills outside the ropes, the only tournament to do so, and have a high-paying, exclusive contract with CBS.
Over the years of covering events I have seen access, number of credentials, limits on where you can stand, etc. slowly erode and even if conditions have changed -- the access never came back.
Let's just say that one year the Super Bowl is played in a stadium where the stands are very close to the sidelines. The NFL may say, it is too tight so we're going to cut 30 still photographers. So when it goes to a bigger stadium the next year do you think they will add back the 30? -- probably not. They will be happy with the cleaner sidelines and everyone still go pictures and they got pictures in all the papers, so they will keep it.
Sure it's hypothetical, but I've seen that type of situation occur again and again in politics and sports -- and even when conditions have returned to "the old days" the access has not.
That is why I take exception to the argument "it is better to simply take some frame grabs." If you take them in one place then others will see it as OK to do in their situation -- whether it warrants or not -- and then we lose that access too.
We just had a long fight with the NCAA at the Final Four over still photographer positioning versus TV cameras. After many months of wrangling and a dozen stand-ins moving around the end line a compromise was finally reached. Thankfully, keeping our numbers the same and positioning very close to what we have had for decades.
Photojournalists are there to tell the story and bring their own vision to a scene and interpret it for the readers. If we simply say it is ok to take the TV camera's view -- one prescribed by the media handlers -- then we have given up on the aspect of photojournalism that makes each event unique to each photographer. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 9:44 AM on 05.06.11 |
->> The teleprompter set up meant no still could be head-on, or close to it.
The prompter is part of the event. Because of the staged nature of the still photos "of record", we have photos which imply the President is reading a historic speech from memory or notes on the podium, when in fact the whole thing was on prompter.
A trivial detail? Who can say? Ten years from now maybe that detail is significant for reasons we can't even think about right now. That's the problem with fabricating these types of images, even for the most trivial of reasons. You have no way of anticipating how significant a detail might be years down the road. Maybe it's the time the photo is taken that is significant and not the photograph itself. Who can tell?
In this day and age, there's really no reason for it. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 10:19 AM on 05.06.11 |
->> "Like it or not, how the WH operates has an effect on coverage elsewhere. The WH is seen as the pinnacle of our country and government. Political candidates base media access on how the WH operates with media pools, travel policies, access times etc. This, in turn, means others see that and think "hey, that's a great way to operate." Truthfully, I've heard people from all sorts of events ask or refer to how the WH handles press when giving reasoning on how their event should be covered. And not just in politics."
Again, if you want to talk about the issue of precedent, and if other political candidates (and sports leagues, which I just don't buy) base media coverage on how the WH operates, then a pretty poor precedent has already been set, because anyone can just tell you, "well, you stage photos at the White House all the time, what's wrong with doing it here?"
George, earlier you said, "you want your own record of the event the best way you can get it." Not one still photographer has a record of the president's historic speech. However, they have a record of a re-creation of Obama's historic speech. |
|
Angus Mordant, Student/Intern
|
Sydney | NSW Australia | Australia | Posted: 10:47 AM on 05.06.11 |
->> Like Bradly pointed out I too would be more concerned by the lack of stills photographs from such a historic speech rather then the angle from which it was taken. In reality only 1 camera caught any record of the moment.
Some of my favorite images I have seen from podium speechs are not front on and dead centre, given the talent of the photographers on hand I would assume a nice image could well have been made from an angle other then straight on. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 2:07 PM on 05.06.11 |
->> One more thing to note from the Reuters blog:
"Once Obama was off the air, we were escorted in front of that teleprompter and the President then re-enacted the walk-out and first 30 seconds of the statement for us."
The Reuters photo of Obama walking out has a caption that reads:
"U.S. President Barack Obama walks down the Cross Hall of the White House after announcing live on television the death of Osama bin Laden from the East Room of the White House in Washington May 1, 2011. Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed on Sunday in a firefight with U.S. forces in Pakistan and his body was recovered, President Barack Obama announced on Sunday. REUTERS/Jason Reed"
The AP photo of the same moment reads:
"President Barack Obama walks back down the Cross Hall after making a televised statement on the death of Osama bin Laden from the East Room of the White House in Washington, Sunday, May 1, 2011. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)"
While these captions are technically true, they say nothing to indicate that Obama is re-enacting the walk-out for still photographers.
Finally, if you take the above quote from the Reuters blog and past it into a Google search, it reveals the kind of discussion that is going on about this topic, and not much of it is favorable. Here's one from MSNBC's PhotoBlog:
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/05/6584474-obama-re-enacted-th...
"Having been prompted to think about this issue this week, our point of view is that there's no reason for us to show pictures of a re-enactment when we can show you screen grabs of the actual address, even if we won't have as much choice or image quality. Yesterday, we replaced still photographs we published from Sunday's re-enactment with frame grabs from HD video, and will not use photographs of re-enactments on our site in the future."
At least somebody gets it. |
|
Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
|
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 3:26 PM on 05.06.11 |
->> "Not one still photographer has a record of the president's historic speech."
i don't think this is true. there may be no press images, but there are White House-supplied images from the actual speech. this is definitely a good discussion, but since nobody outside of the media profession cares, it's not likely to go anywhere. if the press collectively told the White House they can suspend re-enactments since nobody will ever use the images any more, i suspect the White House and the President would welcome the 1-2 minutes of their lives that they can have back. and they still wouldn't let the press into the room during a national address.
souza's Sit Room photo is a White House hand-out...everybody loves it, and nobody cares that the button wasn't pressed by a press photographer. that is to say, we are obviously way more excited about ourselves than the rest of the world. i can't think of a really good reason why a press photog needed to be in either the East Room or the Sit Room, when the White House is providing perfectly proper images of the events. the precedent argument is kind of weak. i'm all for getting hot and bothered about access, but this instance is less than worthy. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 3:51 PM on 05.06.11 |
->> I so beg to differ Mike. The problem, whether the general public cares or not, is not just a question of access but a question of the role of an independent press in our democracy. As access erodes the public becomes more and more complacent with taking their news in the form of government propaganda. It does not help when the response of the media is to accept the status quo and not stand up for high standards of journalism.
A great handout photo is, nonetheless, still a handout photo. It still has be "approved" by those in power.
A re-enacted speech may not seem like a big deal, but any leader who gets too comfortable expecting the press to accept only what they are given will eventually (if not already) show complete contempt for the press and ultimately the foundations of democracy.
just my .02 of course.
Sean |
|
Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
|
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 7:15 PM on 05.06.11 |
->> pretty sure i agree with everything you are saying Sean. in this particular case, i also happen to agree that still camera motor drives should not the background be. dead silence behind the voice of the President is absolutely strategic. it's not a minor detail. in fact, it's so important to the White House to have it absolutely silent, they are willing to have the President of the United States re-enact (like a goof) the first 30 seconds of his address.
so, i see the White House denying live East Room access in the same reasonable way that i see them denying Sit Room access. yes, i know, the issue is nat'l security in the Sit Room, while it's purely PR in the East Room. the address situation is not an issue of transparency, it's an issue of choosing exactly how the message is delivered, period. flash tubes and motor drives are a little too hollywood, if you ask me...especially when you are photographing the US President in his own home.
tacky.
but again, i agree with you. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Angus Mordant, Student/Intern
|
Sydney | NSW Australia | Australia | Posted: 11:06 AM on 05.16.11 |
->> Bradly,
Certainly acknowledgement of the issue is a step in the right direction, however their suggestion of mirrors is a bit obsurd! |
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 11:23 AM on 05.16.11 |
->> Angus,
The mirrors comment in the AP story was misinterpreted. It was referring to using live-view cameras with mirrors locked up.
A more complete and better written story from the NPPA:
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2011/05/obama.html
(another reason why I am a member, some of the best reporting about our industry comes from Donald and the News Photographer magazine) |
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Angus Mordant, Student/Intern
|
Sydney | NSW Australia | Australia | Posted: 11:35 AM on 05.16.11 |
->> Patrick,
Thanks for the clarification, I thought that may have been the case at first but didn't want to assume anything... |
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 3:09 PM on 05.16.11 |
| ->> No worries! I was thinking some crazy carnival fun house setup too when I first saw the story. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|