| 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
Officials vs Chattanooga paper re: tornado coverage
Adam Brimer, Photographer, Assistant
|
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 12:08 AM on 05.06.11 |
| ->> Thanks for posting this. We run into this sort of thing a lot. Not during large scale disasters, since we don't have those around here, but at some local fire and police scenes. Access to these sorts of incidents can be a problem. We have a patchwork of small towns with different police and fire chiefs, each with their own opinions of press access. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 12:48 AM on 05.06.11 |
| ->> Adam, thanks for posting that link. That's pretty scary to think that sort of thing goes on in this country. Where do cops learn that kind of behavior? |
|
Willis Glassgow, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Florence | SC | USA | Posted: 7:40 AM on 05.06.11 |
->> Its like I said on this forum over and over and over and over again. The overzealousness of police is a systemic problem all over the country. They believe they are all powerful and can do anything they want to get a desired result. They believe it is an "us against them" philosophy, where the public and especially the news media is an enemy. Think about it. Of course they are going to distrust us. We report (normally) the truth and many times they are attempting to cover it up.
I know many of you might attack me on this post. But I am speaking in general terms. Of course i have worked with policeman who are great honest people and I trust them. But I also know there are policeman, and yes some personally, that are as crooked as a dog's hind leg. Where talking about hand cuffing someone and beating the crap out of them. Stealing guns, drugs and whatever else from someone to sell. Changing police reports. Making up police reports. It is very common place. If you don't believe it, start doing some research yourself. You'll start to see a pattern of behavior that I feel is taught and learned by each generation of policeman.
Some might believe that I am anti-police. I wouldn't go that far, but I don't trust them and keep my distance from them when having to deal with them. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 8:48 AM on 05.06.11 |
| ->> One of the silliest things about this problem (police violating the rights of media people to do their jobs) is that it is often the fault of (newspaper) management that this problem still exists. Oh sure, the editor of the paper was REALLY mad. Stomping their feet and WRITING a blistering editorial. And the problem is that's where it usually ends. The sad truth is most upper management at newspapers don't ever want to rock the boat because they feel they might lose some kind of access later. The only way to atop this nonsense is through the court system. "Well, Jimmy...sometimes cops get a little excited and you weren't hurt when they cuffed you and tossed you onto the hood of the car. Just let by-gones be by-gones...they did SAY they were sorry after detaining you for four hours." Crying about it in the paper just makes the cops laugh. Lawsuits, which may cause financial and career ramifications, are the only way to deal with this stuff. And just think about this...if these bad cops do this to us in the media, how do you think they treat a member of the general public when no one is looking? |
|
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 11:43 AM on 05.06.11 |
| ->> Good point Chuck. ... And Willis I find the primary reason for the "us against them" dynamic around here has to do with "protection of the victim's privacy." ... Lots of times cops will try to keep me away from accident and fire scenes because they find my shooting those scenes distasteful and voyeuristic. ... Again, this is probably why I agree with Chuck on this. You probably aren't going to talk your way around a person's gut reaction/deeply held conviction, but you can prove your legal right to do your job. |
|
Logan Mock-Bunting, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 12:36 PM on 05.06.11 |
->> Anybody tried reaching out to police/fire BEFORE something like this comes up? Perhaps actually working on a long-term relationship so there is a foundation of trust (or at least understanding) pre-sh!t-hitting the fan? Or is it just people reacting in the heat of the moment and then reacting to those heated reactions?
I would think if you work for a community paper, you are going to run into the same people over and over again. If dialogue and relationships were started outside of emergencies, I would think both parties have a much higher chance of avoiding these power struggles and miscommunications.
I'm not saying it would solve anything, but it certainly couldn't hurt, right? |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:06 PM on 05.06.11 |
| ->> Logan, in theory that sounds great...in real life it more often than not does not work. Here's a personal example. I worked at a small paper in western NC for eight years. In those eight years the police/fire and NCHP officers got to know me...being a small town/county and it being many years ago I would actually shoot evidence photos at crime/accident scenes for them. so yes, we had a GREAT relationship with the authorities. fast forward eight years...my assistant, who took over my job when I left ramped it up even more....he was a home town boy, joined the rescue squad and volunteer fire department...got great access.....until six years later. the biggest fire in the history of the county, a cherished old elementary school burned to the ground. the fire could be seen from twenty miles away. even though HIS volunteer fire department was called to the scene, he was denied access. there is no rhyme or reason to how law enforcement reacts to events. this is the major part of the problem as far as I'm concerned. it's like dealing with a schizophrenic relative....you never know which one you're gonna get. |
|
Brett Clark, Photographer
|
Elizabeth City | NC | USA | Posted: 1:53 PM on 05.06.11 |
| ->> When I talked to the old photo editor there he said they didn't even have police scanners, I assumed he meant even in the newsroom because I was asking if the police and fire were on digital frequencies there and he said they don't even use them. I could be wrong but I can only assume they don't have a very close working relationship. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 1:56 PM on 05.06.11 |
->> Chuck you're right on. Management doesn't want to rock the boat, especially if it's going to cost money or threaten advertising. At this point, I've learned unless you have a video of the alleged incident, you might as well cut your losses and go home, provided you're not in handcuffs.
I've only had one editor throughout the years that had the guts to actually walk into the sheriff's department and confront the sheriff about the behavior of his officers. It got straightened out, right there and then. |
|
Brett Clark, Photographer
|
Elizabeth City | NC | USA | Posted: 2:29 PM on 05.06.11 |
->> We had an incident here where a man drowned at local pond in a rural Hispanic community. We showed up and police wouldn't let anyone down the road where emergency crews were set up, understandable. But when we made our way to the back of the pond where many other people were going to gain access, we were stopped by a sheriff's deputy and told the area was closed off. This despite the fact that we were on a hill and could see all the people we followed in rushing to the scene. I asked if this was a rule for the general public or just the media. He literally replied "just for the media."
Our editors supposedly put in a call to the local sheriff about the situation. But I never heard if anything came of it. However, later on, I was shooting a scene of a school bus wreck with many children involved. A very tense situation for everyone involved. While standing in an area close to the scene, but not where anyone was working or needed to be, I was yelled at by one of the sheriff's deputies. He said "I'm not saying you can't take pictures, but please step back." I was pretty shocked by this, what he requested was very appropriate, and I can only hope was in response to the previous situation at the pond. But if it wasn't, well hats off to what seems like one of the few officers I've met who care about the First Ammendment. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 3:20 PM on 05.06.11 |
->> The one fallacy in senior management's thinking that they don't want to piss anyone off less they get denied access down the road is that they forget the obvious: Those agencies NEED and WANT the media when it serves them.
And they realize that they will need us.
The speech is a simple one: We need to work together. Let's make sure both side understand the rules so that there won't be any problems. You talk to your people, I'll talk to mine so there's no problems down the road. Impacting our ability to deliver the news impacts both sides so let's work together.
Any senior management type that has a problem with this give me a call.
It isn't rocket science - it's communication. |
|
Tom Gannam, Photographer
|
St. Louis | MO | USA | Posted: 12:01 PM on 05.12.11 |
| ->> Unfortunately, this treatment is all to common when covering incidents that require police or public officials to be present for crowd control, etc. However, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the St. Louis County police and the very professional way they handled the media when the tornadoes hit St. Louis and the airport a few weeks back. While the police from multiple jurisdictions were called out and were blocking streets everywhere, they were polite when asked for some direction as to where the worst damage was. I was forced to pursue images on foot because of all the road closures, but when I stumbled into the center of the worst hit area the police were friendly and cooperative. One even lent me their cell phone to help locate mine that had been knocked off my belt in the rubble. So despite the prevalence of the "us against them" attitude with officials, the St. Louis county police and surrounding jurisdictions have proven that the media and law enforcement can coexist peacefully and productively. |
|
David Brooks, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 2:08 PM on 05.12.11 |
->> I have only been a news photographer in California, but isn't the media's access in emergencies covered under that states' penal code?
Cal. Penal Code Section 409.5
(d) Nothing in this section shall prevent a duly authorized
representative of any news service, newspaper, or radio or television station or network from entering the areas closed pursuant to this section. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 6:15 PM on 05.12.11 |
->> Back when I worked in newspaper, I routinely took my NPPA Media FIRE/Police agency book with me, with added pages of local concentrations for extra help, and offered it to those who weren't in the know. Oh sure, occasionally, I got static still, and then I deferred it to my paper to handle, sadly after the fact, but in many cases, and with a good attitude, got right back to work.
I think it also helps when you hire on to a publication, to introduce yourself to the law and safety agencies on your own time, a little step goes a long way. It doesn't help so much when you are on assignment far away from home, but at least in your backyard it can aid you. |
|
Frank Niemeir, Photographer
 |
Woodstock | GA | usa | Posted: 8:20 PM on 05.12.11 |
->> David,
That law is great for California news photographers. When I lived and worked in Southern California I had great access to news scenes. If memory serves me well that law was enacted to give the public eyes into private property, that when public officials (police, fire fighters) enter onto private property that property becomes public since public-paid officials are working on that property, and that the media are also allowed onto the scene as representatives of the public. |
|
David Brooks, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 1:22 AM on 05.13.11 |
->> Frank-
It's interesting to me how access can differ from state to state. One of our staffers is from an AZ paper and one of his first assignments when he got here was covering a fire, he rode with me because he was new and he was amazed that we were able to basically walk up and shoot over the shoulder (within reason) of the working firemen. On another assignment, I covered a housefire and I followed the firemen onto the property but not into the house, the homeowner arrived and didn't want me on his property so I left. In that instance the homeowner was completely within his rights. You just tread lightly. Even with 409.5 officials at the scene will still tell you to leave and I comply for the most part.
David |
|
Myung Chun, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 1:53 AM on 05.13.11 |
->> Frank, your info is incorrect. Even though we have Cal Penal Code 409.5, authorities don't always abide by it. I know from personal experience.
As far as private property, you need the permission of the resident or owner to be on the property. Law enforcement, fire nor medical personnel can give you permission.
The lawsuit against COPS the tv show comes to mind although I can't seem to find a link for it. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 11:38 AM on 05.14.11 |
->> Is it common for photojournalists to shoot evidence photos for the police? Seems I remember reading here about newspapers fighting to keep police from siezing their photos for evidentiary purposes.
Guess I don't understand this whole journalism thing. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|