Pixiq

I agree that it is very irritating to have a protestor tell you not to shoot their photo… it is VERY hypocritical. You don’t get to choose which parts of the constitution you like… it ALL applies to EVERYONE. I had a similar problem during the 2008 DNC. … very irritating.

That being said, another thing I noticed during the DNC and this video, is that alot of photographers today have thrown all ethics out the window. Regardless of how angry you become while working, it is your responsibility to maintain a professional tone. So, a protestor bonks you on the head with a paper sign… move to a new location… don’t lunge at the guy and try to rip his head off.

I’m sorry if this offends anyone, and as a student, I don’t want to tell any of you “super-pros” your business… but I believe that it is important for photo-journalists to read this code of ethics (as many times as neccessary… tattoo it on your forehead if you must.) http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html

But don’t worry too much, I guess it’s better to be an unethical photographer than an unethical cop!

one last thing, I’m wondering why there was a guy following the photographer around with a video camera? (not being sarcastic, im just curious)

From the video, I believe I heard him say he’s from The New York Post. At one point he was trying to reason with them, explaining that “The New York Post would like to tell their (the protestors) side of the story.”

It’s amazing that they would be so ignorant to disgrace their own cause like this. I’d think when trying to curry favor with the masses you’d want to be as friendly to the press as possible.

What’s even more galling, is that as you alluded to, was their attempts to trample the right of this guy to photograph which is the same right that assures them the right to assemble and protest.

I agree with Kim (the previous poster) that this photographer was out of line in striking back at the protester that nailed him with the sign. As a professional he should have shrugged it off. I can’t blame him though, we all make mistakes and considering all of the noise I’d guess stress levels were running pretty high all around. It doesn’t make it right, but I think we can all understand.

As far as the police go, it is very unprofessional of them to allow that kind of continued harassment, but I could fathom their perspective on it. It almost appeared they were outnumbered by the “brown shirts” and I’m guessing their complacency had more to do with preventing a riot than protecting the individual. I’m no fan of the police, but if their goal was preventing a riot and preserving the public’s safety as a whole they probably made the right decision at that time. It’s just shameful that the rights of one had to be trampled on to do it.

Also, how much do you really stand behind your opinion if you’re afraid to be seen voicing it?

The behavior of the officers in this video is outrageous. If someone were to have actually been injured in any of these altercations, it would have taken the officers an hour just to walk by.

I know people hate the press. But most of what people perceive as bad is “liberal television news”. They don’t see the differences between photographers covering a story and the reporter/news company sensationalizing what happened. This is a big problem for any photographer or videographer.

One thing I know I would do in the situation with the green vest guy grabbing at the photographer. If he were to have grabbed my shirt, i would have told him once to let go and if he didn’t, he’d be in a wrist lock and forced down or his hand would be twisted around and him forced to the ground.

It’s one thing to get close to someone in a argument, but once you touch them, you’ve just become a serious threat.

I agree with you in theory Andrew. I feel the same way, in that if he touched me a second time, I’d want to take some action. In that video however, I have a feeling things would take a very nasty turn, considering the numbers. Thinking about it now though, it’s telling how the yellow jackets want to be provocative, then cry foul when faced with the results of their actions.

“And yes, I do know that Israel has banned journalists from entering Gaza, but what do you expect from a country that does not have the First Amendment?”

Dude, seriously? It has nothing to do with a First Amendment of any kind. Said First Amendment would only apply to the country that has it in the first place, not to another territory entirely. That’s like blaming America for not letting every foreign journalist in the world travel to Cuba through the U.S. EVEN THOUGH we have an enumerated First Amendment right.

Stop blaming Israel first.

As for getting hit with a sign while taking photos, I’m on Andrew’s side. If someone hits me, I’m not going to shrug it off, as Rick suggested. You have every right to defend yourself from aggression in that situation. What really offends me are the cops not doing anything about it, and that happens a lot with these violent “Free Gaza peace activists.” I’ve posted many examples on my blog: http://www.bydio.com/2009/01/11/police-do-wrong-things-to-make-their-job...

Andrew,

Many times I’ve had people get in my face and yell things as I am photographing or filming and I don’t really mind that, but once they touch me, then I do mind that and I let them know in the least subtle way as possible.

Donkeyrock,

I’m not blaming anybody but the protesters. But people would no doubt bring that fact up in trying to justify the actions of these protesters, so I was cutting that argument off before it was brought up.

But I knew you would be quick to respond to that one.

Woof.

Do you read the comic strip What The Duck? It’s about photography, very amusing.

http://whattheduck.net/

Why do people act this way? Those protesters were completely out of line. I’m not really certain what felt they had to gain by attacking a photographer like that.

I have noticed a large segment of Palestinians who seem to seethe with anger – over everything – ALL the time. They seem genetically incapable of forgiveness or graciousness.

Isn’t the point of a public demonstration to get attention from the news media? Why protest if you want anonymity? I’ll tell you why. It is because you are perpetually pissed off and itching for a fight with somebody, ANYBODY.

Barbarians.

Donkeyrock,

Good one.

John,

I will never understand the mentality of people who go through the trouble of making up signs, then stand on a public street, chanting at the top of their lungs and act surprised when someone wants to take their photo.

It’s just ignorance but as I mentioned in the post, it’s not just restricted to these protesters. There are always a few in every protest.

What bothers me about this story is those guys in the green vests.

This video should be used to start drafting laws forbidding just anyone from taking the role of a “security guard”.

Doesn’t a security guard need to have some type of license?

And those cops need to be disciplined as well. If they’re not going to enforce the law, then strip them of their badges.

Having said that, I would never have attempted to contact the cops if I were in that situation because I really have no confidence in them.

I would probably end up fighting these assholes and the cops would be forced to jump in.

Seeing a protest like this tells me I should always bring my monopod with me. And it won’t be used for stabilizing the camera.

Haha, no Carlos, no question about your commitment to your opinion. I meant “you” as in the general term in reference to the protesters that didn’t want to be photographed. In my mind the only reason they wouldn’t want to be photographed is for their “protection.” Whether it’s fear an employer will see it, a customer, neighbor, etc.

Kim,

It appears the videographer just happened to come across this scene and just kept following the guy, knowing something wasn’t right.

I would like to hear the videographer’s side of the story, so if you’re out there, talk to us.

Rick,

I know, I know. I just came back from an assignment and realized what you meant, so I deleted my question to you.

It was still too early for me so my mind wasn’t clear when I wrote that.

“I would probably end up fighting these assholes and the cops would be forced to jump in.

Seeing a protest like this tells me I should always bring my monopod with me. And it won’t be used for stabilizing the camera.”

I’m right there with you. I probably would have let the guy bopping me with a sign go unchallenged but the second a green shirt pushes me backwards I’m Mike Tyson and he’s Michael Spinks – with identical results.

Is there anything surprising about this story? In response to political cartoons, the Arab world goes crazy, sends death threats to cartoonists, newspapers, and anyone else of mild interest, riots in the streets, etc. There is a clear history of sending death threats or even killing writers, journalists, photographers, and artists who tread on the toes of the Muslim world, and I’m talking of the attacks that have taking place in Europe, not merely the Middle East. And, of course, the response to anyone who calls the Arab world violent? Violence! Somehow they miss the irony.

Very disturbing. I feel like he should have just left but then he wouldn’t be doing his job and would have let them win, in that they’d know they can threaten anyone enough to get rid of them.

But on the other side, he was using his camera to upset them, and he knew it. They were getting pissed off from him taking so many photos.. I’ve done that myself so I know it’s a tactic.

Anyway that doesn’t make it right what that crowd did..they were acting savage.

It seems most of the issue of photograpy rights centers around this core issue: The difference between what is perceived to be IMPOLITE vs. what is actually ILLEGAL.

Taking someones picture at a demonstration designed to attract attention is certainly not illegal. However, some of the people may perceive the photographer to be impolite in his/her application.

As a citizen, I am not constrained by what you or anyone else believes is impolite and I do not confuse your personal preferences with my legal rights.

The photographer has a right to photograph, wtih credentials or no credentials. He was in a public space where other citizens were walking. He probably shouldn’t have gone after the person who struck him. And it appears that he spent too much time arguing than covering the story.

If you look at other videos of the protest, he wasn’t the only one who was harassed.

If they didn’t want to be photographed, he should have left them alone.

Respect,

they should respect his rights to photograph and not be assaulted.

If they didn’t want to be photographed, they shouldn’t have been out in PUBLIC.

at around 5min, it sounds like one of the megaphone users makes fun of the phiotographer’s weight and hygiene, and says he beats women. because he took their pictures? this shows the levels of reason/logic being applied.

i’ve had chairs thrown at me by protesters for less, and i didn’t go bitching to the cops afterwards (i knew they’d seen it anyway). while i see this guy’s point about not budging on principle, it also makes practical sense to back off and reapproach from another angle. the police are there first to prevent a riot, as someone alse pointed out, and without more resources they couldn’t afford to protect one man who was taking a stand – although they might have, at least, told the greenshirts to leave the photographer alone. but in all, i can’t say the photographer was wise to push back when he was hit by the sign, as that was exactly what the crowd wanted, as an excuse to focus their anger.

i’m not sure i even agree with his decision to push back at the 9min mark. “snatching” at ID is the same as trying to “see” it, in such circumstances, and the photographer’s refusal to supply his full name – while wearing ID – is almost equivalent to the protesters’ refusal to be photographed. why is the photog wearing the ID if he doesn’t want anyone to know his name? if he’d given his name immediately he’d have taken away the guy’s excuse to crowd him, and by demanding to know the greenshirt’s name in return he’d have taken a lot of heat out of the scene.

i just don’t think everything’s on the photographer’s side, in this case. while he may be within his rights to defend himself, practical experience tells me that escalation is the last thing required in situations like this. diplomacy, discretion and, at worst, retreat are in order, lest the photographer end up being a prime character in the story they’re supposed to be objectively reporting.

PS for what it’s worth, i’d read as much spin into the socialist press as i would the fox network. take any accusation with a grain of salt, until proven elsewhere.

PPS although, upon second viewing, it could be that the photog struck a female when he lunged for the sign at 2min. it’s hard to tell genders at the given resolution.

if this is the case, it goes to show why escalation is unwise. short of having one’s life threatened without means of escape, the value of “self defence” becomes very hazy in what is already a metophorical warzone.

(pardon the multiple comments. i’m too used to seeing an edit button.)

I’m sorry but this is pathetic. Even though, the video doesn’t show what happened earlier, it shows two things.

1- The police should’ve been more alert (in case a fight erupts)
2- The msg in the beginning of the video looked like a pre-roll sponsor
3- Every photographer knows that in a protest you will encounter mixed police reaction. It is not smart to intimidate or be persistent a front of a mob and scream looking for cops it’s just not professional and not safe!
4- As a photographer and a NY’er I am ashamed at the reaction of the NYPD (Although not sure why they did this. Could it be this photographer is known to do this? I know in some press conferences the Secret Service keep a tab on trouble makers)

It’s quite obvious this photographer allowed a lack of both professional and social skills to defuse the situation early on.

First and foremost he lunges at the female protester which only results in a negative escalation at that point.

Secondly he uses his camera and flash numerous times as a “semi weapon” hoping to blind the protesters. Given the lens to subject distance it is quite apparent that some images would have resulted in blurry out of focus and/or overexposed images.

So why still shoot such crappy images? Well it is clear the photographer is using the only weapon he has at hand or should I say “belly” to startle the protester’s into submission.

Rather than cover the protest story itself the photographer now finds he can be at the center of his own sideline story centering around alleged mistreatment and police incompetence.

His motivation and rational is quite simple as sensationalized stories are the business his employer the New York Post thrives on as a tabloid news outlet.

My suggestion for the photographer is to put more time and effort into improving his overall health by terminating those late night visits to fast food outlets and consider a revised healthier lifestyle consisting of a proper diet and physical exercise centering around cardio-vascular and weight lifting exercises.

The end result will be he will not be picked on by an angry mob because he appears to be a “fatso” photographer. It’s sad but true here in the United States overweight individuals receive little or no respect and that applies two fold for overweight photographer’s.

Get lean and mean and you might be taken more seriously next time.

nuff said,

Richard Simmons
professional freelance photojournalist

Richard Simmons,

You’re blaming the victim of assault for fighting back, excusing the police for not doing their job, and further blaming the victim because he’s not a socially acceptable weight. Whatever malice you wish to attribute to his actions — whether he’s too fat and not physically imposing because of his non-Adonis physique, a journalist for a tabloid that wishes to provoke crowds, or just lacking in social graces when attacked or provoking the attack because of inferred lack of social graces — the facts are clear on the video.

To use a more common metaphor, you are blaming the rape victim for the rape because the victim provoked the rapist by wearing sexy clothes.

Donkeyrock,

No, I not blaming the person you claim to be the victim as he is clearly the instigator.

Yes the video does clearly show the facts.

1) After some taps are directed to the photographer’s head he purposely decides to react by leaping at a female protester, which directly results in an escalation of the chaos and violence, directed at him there after.

2) Due to his inability to defend himself (partially due to his obesity) he runs multiple times to NYPD for aid.

It is not the police department’s job to aid an instigator who provokes violence against them.

If indeed the photographer had the social graces and physical ability to deal with the event correctly perhaps he would not have to run off like a child to the police department each time he requires aid.

Given the turmoil and chaos the authorities have to contend with on a given day the last thing they need is a photographer with an agenda to incite and promote violence solely to increase circulation at their newspaper.

I regret that you failed to understand the overwhelming benefits of maintaining a healthy lifestyle both physically and emotionally, as the long-term results from such a plan will yield overwhelming positive results repeatedly.

In closing, I am a bit confused with your analogy of a rape victim. First and foremost I never made such a statement as it is clear The NY Post photographer in question is quite unsexy and I highly doubt anyone would ever attempt to rape him on the street.

Unless of course the photographer finds himself in jail with a cellmate named Big Bubba. This may very well end up being the case if the photographer continues on a path which will eventually lead to his possible arrest.

I sincerely hope he will his camera and flash at that time so he can document such abuse or else the authorities may not believe him when he files a complaint.

Nuff said,

Richard Simmons

It’s not really either party’s singular fault. Both sides really instigated, but either could have backed off at any time.

Mr. Simmons,

“2) Due to his inability to defend himself (partially due to his obesity) he runs multiple times to NYPD for aid. ”

I’m pretty sure he ran to the NYPD for aid because he was nearly surrounded by angry protesters, not because he was overweight. As a matter of fact, I myself am a good bit overweight, and am able to defend myself just fine. (thank you karate classes)

“If indeed the photographer had the social graces and physical ability to deal with the event correctly perhaps he would not have to run off like a child to the police department each time he requires aid.”

The police were there to keep violence from occurring. It was the photographers job to shoot the event, and the officer’s job to keep it in hand. They didn’t do it very well. The photographer was just doing his job, although he could have diffused the situation much easier by leaving that scene and approaching from a different angle. The majority of the fault lies with the protesters.

So, as much as it annoys me to say it, I actually agree with Donkeyrock.

Scott, you sweet-talker, you.

Richard,

You even say the photographer was assaulted first in your claim that he instigated the problem. You prefer to call them “taps”, but getting hit on the head with a large stick is assault. You might choose a different tactic if someone hits you on the head with a stick, but the photographer was in the right for defending himself.

I don’t see how his weight is an issue in this at all. That you brought it up as part of the reason for him causing protesters to assault him shows a lack of critical thinking on your part.

I scoff at your reasoning and find you as mentally lacking as you find that photographer physically lacking.

Donkeyrock,

As any professional photojournalist already knows covering an emotionally charged story requires 1) Common sense and tact 2) a well thought out plan 3) Keen social skills to defuse or tone down those who may threaten or hinder their ability to perform their job 4) physical resources which allow the photographer to be quick and agile to exit an area which has become out of control.

The role of personal fitness and health playing a part in the success of a photojournalist or for that matter any professional engaged in the workplace is easily apparent with the growing daily statics of the negative consequences obesity plays in the American workplace.

Would you deny that stress is not a cause of heart attack? Given the amount of undue mental and physical stress this photographer places upon himself it is only a matter of time before he could suffer a heart attack or stroke while covering a story.

Take a look at some of the conflict photojournalists working today (Zoriah, James Nachtwey) and I doubt you will find many of them as far out of physical shape as this NY Post photographer. Their very survival depends on a major part on maintaining their own physical well being.

Individuals fat, skinny, small, tall, etc all need to take into account how they can best protect themselves emotionally and physically for the job task at hand.

In the end the overwhelming point I must make is that a rational photojournalist needs to be keenly aware of when to call it quits and move on to cover another part of the story instead of trying to become the story himself.

Richard Simmons

Richard,

I think I see what you’re trying to say, but the flaw I see comes in the environment. A photojournalist not being in shape does not have a detrimental effect on his ability to do the job, especially when he’s covering a rally in NYC. However, if you’re going to go to a hot spot like Somalia, then your physical condition can definitely be a factor. You can’t expect every photojournalist to be fit and trim just because they may be in a hot spot situation one day; that would be like expecting every security guard to be fit and trim because one day they might have to be a Secret Service agent. For this situation, his physical appearance — and whatever stress he may be under because of it — is not a real factor.

While his manners may not have been impeccable, he was still well within his rights to stop people from attacking him, and his weight had no bearing on that action whatsoever. Could he have moved on to cover another angle? Of course he could have. Should he have to move because he’s being assaulted? No, the police should’ve arrested his attackers.

Maybe the photojournalist should sign up for the Richard Simmon’s plan to lose weight.

http://www.richardsimmons.com/j15/

Sweating to the f-stops?

Carlos and Donkeyrock, LOL.

Mr. Simmons,
His weight had nothing to do with his predicament. I bet 10 to 1 he could have just walked away after he got hit by that sign, and they wouldn’t have tried anything else. But he got physical. More than once. Actually I think that they all kind of needed to be arrested, protectors and journalist alike. It could have easily turned into an all out brawl where innocent bystanders were hurt. They should be sentenced with anger management, as they all seemed to be very angry for very little reason.

As any professional photojournalist already knows covering an emotionally charged story requires 1) Common sense and tact 2) a well thought out plan 3) Keen social skills to defuse or tone down those who may threaten or hinder their ability to perform their job 4) physical resources which allow the photographer to be quick and agile to exit an area which has become out of control.”

Umm, we are talking about a “Pro” Palestinian Gaza Rally here, right????

Where again do these steps fit in to that?????

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

It is well understood that Israeli intelligence seeks out the identify of protesters to keep a record of them. So, if any of these pro-Gaza demonstrators live or plan to visit family in either Israel Proper, the West Bank or Gaza, then that picture may find its way to secret files that reside at either the Tel Aviv airport or at the border crossings from either Jordan or Egypt to the West Bank & Gaza. So, when you see a pro-Israeli NY Post photographer come up in your face, then you need to do something to ensure that he doesn’t take your photo.

The issue here is the NY Post’s aggressive stance against Palestinians have resulted in their photographers being put in danger.

I agree with the principles you espouse and have contributed several times to your legal defense fund. But, when photographers use their protected information-seeking status to populate J. Edgar Hoover-era records on you, then those rules don’t apply.

That sneering fat-ass photographer is a fucking asshole. If I were a cop I would have maced him for trying to provoke violence in the middle of an already heated event. COnsidering the NY Post’s decades of endorsement of Israeli crimes against Palestinians, we should not be surprised that this smirking fuck was clearly trying to instigate violence in order to get shots which would go well with the intensely negative coverage the NY Post would certainly give to the protestors.

anomalousNYC:

No need to instigate Pali protesters; a Pali protest consists of ignorant college students and/or ignorant Muslims, so it’s bound to devolve into violence. Your cause is a lie.

Israel: from Iraq to the sea (according to the Balfour Declaration)!

AnamolousNYC, The Post is the last bastion of honesty this city has. As for Israeli crimes on Palestinians? Don’t make me laugh.

The photographer has every right to photograph people in a public protest. He clearly told them that he is interested in their side of the story too.

This crowd is typical of the clueless idiots who align themselves with Jihadists in order to put forth their anti-Jewish agenda. It clearly demonstrates which side of the Middle East issue is the violent side and that would be the Muslims who follow a instruction manual called the Koran that calls upon them to murder Jews. If anyone on this blog wants to argue that point – you better have read the Koran before you even attempt it.

Jordan is 77% of the former “Palestine (BMP)” and was declared an independent country in 1946, yet the “Palestinians” only demand Jewish land – they haven’t demanded anything of Jordan. Why? They’re already an Islamic regime.