[no subject]

Then and now I know that there are reasons for preventing a person from
being too close to a scene and can appreciate the stress that law
enforcement is under with every single stop they make. Every one is
unique and dynamic so the officer has to take all variables into
account and make the scene as safe for themselves as well as the
civilians around them.

I'm not saying that I agree with the beating of people recording police
activity but there IS another side of the story and we must appreciate
that these people are doing a dangerous job in a capacity to protect
people in their charge and therefore should be given some obedience.
Not complete subservience but respect for the work they are doing.

All too often these discussions are far too black and white, yes or no,
when there is no such situation in real life.

Phil Forrest



On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:12:00 -0500
Greg Rubenstein <gcr910 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll add my three cents as a former media guy.
> 
> Phil raised valid points as a photographer and former LEO.
> 
> The article is The Times' side of the saga.
> 
> I was moved away by LEOs in my day and generally shifted to a longer
> lens from a less obtrusive or less dangerous place. Officers knew
> what I was doing and I knew what they were doing.
> 
> Now, the tricky part: Do riots cause photographers or do
> photographers cause riots? [Let's stipulate that in this context
> "photographers" is a synonym for media.]
> 
> PDN several years ago ran a widely used photo of masked Palestinians
> hurling Molotov cocktails. Who and what they were thrown at varied by
> caption writer.
> 
> What PDN also ran opposite that photo that other media did not was a
> second photo of the same scene from a different angle. It showed a
> phalanx of photographers photographing people hurling the Molotov
> cocktails into an empty lot backed by a brick wall. A much different
> story than what was shown in the mainstream media.
> 
> Do riots cause photographers or do photographers cause riots?
> 
> We don't have all the facts from the various sides of the New York
> incident, but we do know what happens when cameras of any sort appear
> at a flashpoint situation; they can spark the explosion or deliver a
> useful record. We also know all sides can turn and use the media to
> promote their agendas.
> 
> Let's get all the facts. Let's also try to look at it objectively;
> there's far more we don't know about the totality of the incident
> that drew media attention than we do know. The photographer is a
> sideshow, possibly The NYT's reminder not to argue with the guy who
> owns the printing presses and the ink. 
> 
> Any of y'all know for sure what happened there other than The NYT guy
> was arrested?
> 
> Greg Rubenstein
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



-- 
http://philipforrestphoto.wordpress.com/
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/philforrest