[Leica] I really disagree with this policy

[neilsimages at pipeline.com (Neil Schneider)]

On Sep 8, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Ted Grant wrote:

Hi Ted.

>  But there are more and more of the "worst rat-pack" types evolving 
> partially because the digital era has made it possible for these types 
> to become part of the previously clean honourable profession as a 
> newsphotograher.

Fortunately for our profession I believe most of these rat-pack types 
are star searching paparazzi and not news-photographers.
its very difficult if not virtually impossible for these types to get 
press credentials here in New York City. Since 9/11, this is a very
press credential conscious city when it comes to media events. (I'm not 
totally comfortable with this either)
But I can't speak of other cities or Canada.

> When it was "film only" we'd shoot, know how to soup film, make prints 
> in the bathroom of a hotel and know how to operate wire photo 
> machines. And with that, it eliminated the mental midgets of today who 
> because they have a digital exposing machine of some kind, claim to be 
> "media."   And with many of these people it's more a "thrill of the 
> kill" in getting some sort of exposure and having it published, than 
> anything to do with the honour of being a news photographer with 
> compassion.

Been there and done that also. But you can't deny there were a lot of 
the same types back then too. We all remember Weegee.
But that was a different time, standards were different, a more 
"gentlemanly" era.

> Well it's logical they are there in such huge numbers because of the 
> magnitude of the disaster. And the advent of the big stock agencies 
> now prodcing a great deal of photography to out market the general 
> wire news services.

The big stock agencies as Black Star, Sygma, and Gamma, to mention a 
few are now a thing of the past, being swallowed up by Getty and Corbis
and turned into the new wire services giving AP & Reuters a run for 
their money. I think here is where the problem lies. its well known 
here that these two "agencies" are signing up "wannabes", giving them 
digital cameras and computers and telling them they're 
photojournalists, sending them out to stories all over the world. Yeah, 
this is a problem and may be what you refer to.

> Sure they should vent their anger or whatever comment they wish to 
> make as freely as they can. But that has nothing to do with still 
> photgraphers and we're discussing photography and photographers.

As you said of Fox TV and CNN.  Another dilemma altogether.............


>> You have to give the media credit for getting the story and the heart 
>> wrenching images out. We may not always do it perfectly (and you are 
>> in that "we") But we do work at our jobs with compassion also.<<<<
>
> We media people generally manage to circumvent " governement control " 
> if you like some way or other, not always as fast as we'd like. But 
> what many government bureaucrats never learn is... "the tougher they 
> try to control the media, the tougher we become at getting the story. 
> If for no other reason than doing an end run around them to see what 
> they're hiding or didn't do correctly."
>
> But in some cases control is necessary. The coverage in the Superedome 
> could have been done so simply with care and compassion on a "pool" 
> basis. Simply using the most experinced photographer or two and TV 
> crew to shoot inside. Then whatever is shot belongs to all.

This premise I disagree with.  Even if you did use a pool, which  has 
shown to be problematic in the past, "most experienced"........ how 
about the better photographer for the job. I don't even like that, and 
who gets to choose. How about a rotating basis which I've at times been 
part of myself.
This lessens the governments ability at control, each photographer 
knows what they have to shoot for their papers or magazines, and just a 
few enter at a time for a specified period, and then the next crew, and 
so on.

> However, that may not work in your country as the media would end up 
> fighting amongst themselves with court orders etc to decide whom was 
> selected to shoot. Then by the time the company lawyers and court got 
> finished, NO would've been re-built! Still no pictures!

Never saw that happen with the courts yet and doubt it ever would. The 
problem here is a namby-pamby media that has given up its independence
on the threat of no access to government officials by the current 
administration. If you don't play ball with them your reporters and 
photographers are never given those one on one interviews, and never 
called on at press conferences. The US media I'm sad to say has caved 
to the detriment of the American public..............

Neil