Everybody wants to be an editor
One of the main arguments I’ve heard from critics about my two arrests for photographing cops against their wishes is that I wasn’t photographing anything newsworthy, so I should not have risked getting arrested.
They tell me I should pick my battles and only choose the ones that matter.
The problem is, if you allow the cops to forbid you from taking photos on the small stuff, why you should expect it to get any easier when you have a Pulitzer Prize winning photo opportunity?
The other problem is, by allowing them to intimidate you from taking the photo, you allow them to make the editorial decisions for you.
As a professional journalist who graduated with a degree in journalism and has worked in newsrooms on both coasts, including a few in between, I am capable of making my own judgment on what is newsworthy or not.
And frankly, even if a photo is not particularly newsworthy, the officer still doesn’t have a right to forbid me from taking it as long as I am not interfering with an investigation or otherwise breaking the law.
That should be common sense but it obviously isn’t because cops continually believe their badge gives them an editorial authority over what gets reported.
It doesn’t.
The issue is highlighted this week by Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Thomas Mitchell:
The everybody-wants-to-be-the-editor phenomenon surfaced again at the funeral of Stan Cooper, the federal courthouse security officer killed during a gun battle with a man upset over the outcome of his court case.
The funeral was in a large church, and the public was invited.
Our reporter Richard Lake arrived early and was in the church talking with officials of the church about the services. Everyone was cooperative.
Lake made the mistake of going outside to talk with our photographer, who was not allowed inside with his equipment. Several reporters from various media were talking to Las Vegas Metropolitan Police public information officer Bill Cassell, and Lake joined the group.
Cassell asked Lake where he had been, and Lake replied he had been inside the church. Cassell told Lake he was not allowed in the church on orders of the U.S. Marshal Service. To which Lake replied he would put away his notebook and pocket his Review-Journal photo identification badge, which was hanging visibly from his belt, and then enter the church like any other member of the public. At this point Cassell said he would have him arrested.
Rather than risk spending the night in jail, Lake returned to the office to watch the televised services while the city desk sent another reporter, without badge showing, to report from inside.
Mitchell first addressed the issue in a column back in November after another incident in which a law enforcement was trying to play editor.
On Monday, a throng of reporters and photographers gathered at Family Court for a child support hearing for Dr. Conrad Murray, whose medical care for the late pop star Michael Jackson has drawn the scrutiny of authorities and the press.
When the hearing was over, Dr. Murray exited, but the journalists in the courtroom were blocked by an armed bailiff, presumably so the celebrity doctor could escape the courthouse without being pestered by those rude members of the Fourth Estate.
Yes, those mob scenes of screaming tabloidistas and scrambling paparazzi are so unseemly, even embarrassing to those of us in the more genteel ranks, but that is no license for the bailiff to play editor
Nikon D800 and some great Canon Deals
A photo competition for February!
How to use a grey card
We’re All Bozos On This Bus--The Red Bus to Hell
Worlds Fastest Camera
The New Sony NEX 7
Choosing your first dSLR
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
Photo Accessories that Fail Security Checks
My week with Q
Studio equipment buying guide for beginners
VSCO Film Studio Review
Lessons in Lighting
The russellgraves.com Photo Minute - Truck Blinds
Cattle Country
Creative Photo Valentine Surprise
How to Use Multiple Lights for Dramatic Portraits
Making your own flash diffuser
LR4 free presets: Faded series
Using Sync for Video in Develop
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
My Night with Ilford Galerie Gold Silk Fibre
FOTOMOTO - Why I Left











Silhouettes & Photo Contests
Cyan, not just another color
Our 26 best photo projects of 2011
Family Ties That Bind
Animal Group Portraits
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Always Dream Big
Behind the Scenes of a Documentary Film
Getty Villa Malibu — 4 Old Faces, 1 Sunken Garden — GALLERY (6 photos)
GALLERY — Walt Disney Concert Hall — 5 Photos
Wildlife photography for the masses
The 110 page guide to post-processing
How much should you charge for a photograph?
Santa Pictures + Marketing for your Business



























Comments
Everybody repeat after me: If the public is allowed there, so is the media. ARGH. This is effectively prior restraint and since the PIO prevented him from doing his job, also restraint of trade. And that pesky old First Amendment.
In my opinion, police interference with a reporter or photographer covering a story violates not only the 1st Amendment rights of the journalist, but also the 1st Amendment rights of everyone who might have read the coverage that would have ensued. That the police have a desire to limit coverage either reflects poor training (possibly a systemic failure) or they are trying to cover something up.
Law enforcement leaders need to know this: If I were on a jury tomorrow I would be disinclined to take police testimony at face value. It does not matter whether it is a matter of training or genuine malfeasance, the result is the same. South Florida law enforcement has become untrustworthy.
Anybody who wants to be, can be an editor all they want.
After all, in they end, they each individually choose what books, magazines, papers, articles and websites they read, what music they listen to, what art galleries and museums they attend, and what television channels they watch.
The choice of the end user is the only appropriate place for censorship everyone to be an editor.
Rich is exactly right. Carlos, I agree with you 100%. It follows the same line as “If you have nothing to hide, why can’t we search you.”
It is an invasion of rights. Period.
mepsipax´s last blog ..I am going to Hell
CM, it’s sad that your fellow journalists at miami411.com are mindless drones.
Well said, Carlos. This is true more than ever now, as with the war on terror and the Patriot Act, we’re constantly being asked to give up more and more of our “smaller” rights.
But as Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Post new comment