..and one rule for another.
Yesterday, I was put on “Climate Camp” watch along with fellow AFP photographer and good friend Shaun Curry. Following a few days of media hype with demonstrators refusing to give any information on their planned camp site location and the police offering “community-style” policing if the demonstrators were prepared to cooperate, we both went to our pre-arranged meeting points. With seven groups announced on the group’s website, I headed to the headquarters of Rio Tinto where the 70 or so protestors sat around waiting until we finally got the go-ahead and travelled via tube and train to the mystery final destination. Before we started to move, all of the media were handed “guidelines” and here is where my annoyance begins. While economic and environmental protest groups were falling over themselves to get images and video from members of the media following the recent trouble at the Mayday demonstrations in central London, they were now imposing their own rules. It seems that as long as the footage shows evidence of police errors, the media is their friend.
With an official but smaller version available here, I’ll just pick a few choice highlights for you. Firstly, it should be pointed out that the eventual destination and current climate camp is on Blackheath which is public common land. This means that it’s open for the public to access and enjoy at all times.
You will be accompanied by an assigned camper during that time, who will ensure that both campers and journalists are kept happy, and can ensure that consent is obtained from people being filmed and photographed.
Outside of these hours, there will also be a particular spot close to the entrance to which TV crews can be escorted to do interviews.
What? So in a public area that has been cordoned off with temporary fencing by the protest groups, we have to ask permission to access this land which will only be granted between certain hours (10:00-16:00) and only if guided by a steward? On the plus side, for some reason this year’s occupation doesn’t feel as insane as last year where the group illegally occupied land by the side of Heathrow airport and THEN started telling the media when we were allowed to come onto their land and to respect their rights and not to try to come onto their land at any other times.
Certain neighbourhoods and work spaces may decide to ‘opt out’ of the media access policy, and no journalists of any kind should go to these spaces in any kind of capacity. This is not because these areas have ‘anything to hide’ but because the camp process respects the right of those neighbourhoods and working groups who don’t feel comfortable engaging with the media. Our ability to provide wider access to the camp depends on us being able to respect the decision of these groups to opt out like this. Journalists will be informed by the media team on arrival which neighbourhoods and spaces have opted out. The neighbourhoods that opt out may change during the week.
Again, I’m not allowed to go to certain areas of this publicly-owned land because some people have decided that the laws that cover media access and control for every other part of society aren’t quite good enough for them. However, if they decide that they now want publicity, they have the right to suddenly beckon the journalists in to record their experiences.
In another sheet, we are also told that “you must display your press badge at all times“. The logic behind this is that “if you’re identifiable as a press journalist..then you’ll find it easier to get an insight into the camp”. So it’s fine to retain your anonymity if you’re a protestor but not if you’re media. ID cards anyone?
The guide goes on to say that “if you want to take a picture or video and it includes people, always always ask first. If you can’t ask, don’t take the picture“ Again, UK law says if someone is in public and not on private property and as long as they’re over 16, you’re free to take whatever pictures you want. This is a part of UK law that should be protected to the end as without this, how does the media hope to get a picture of anyone? As soon as controls of this type are introduced, our hands are effectively tied. The fact that these restrictions are trying to be enforced by “Smash the System” ecological and financial protestors would be hilarious if it wasn’t so stupid. I was shooting for about ten minutes before I was told to stop. When I enquired why, I was told I had to ask everyone first. I told him that I didn’t and he informed me that camp policy was to strongly request me to ask first. I informed him that I’d officially heard his strong request and chosen to ignore it. I carried on shooting, he stopped talking. Grrr..
For further reading on this situation, check out Jonathan Warren’s blog here.
Now after reading all of that, the last thing that I want you to think is that I’m some Neo-Con Littlejohn fan. Far from it, I would hate people to grow up and live their lives thinking that they were unable to change the things in the world that they disagreed with. The feeling that you can change the world is such a vital thing for everyone to feel at some point in their lives whether it’s for a phase during the College/University years or for their whole lives. My problem comes from organisations believing that they have the right to cry that the world’s not fair and then bring in rules and regulations that are far tighter than the governing bodies that they rebel against.
At home, I have eco-bulbs, I reuse my shopping bags, I never use the standby function on my tv and I use public transport. However, I now really feel like buying a Hummer..
I’ve just got back from 7 weeks in India covering the drought and was looking forward to poping down to shoot climate camp.
After reading this i don’t think il bother however.
I don’t think it’s worth that hassle really. Alot of the people who participate in those sorts of protests seem to think that us photographers are all earning a huge fortune covering those events and are somehow exploiting the situation for a big paycheck from the Times or something.
This is rarely the case, alot of us freelancers spend alot of time, energy, and effort on covering the huge amounts of protests that take place in London and rarely see much, if any at all, money from it.
I understand how staffers on a salary will have the energy to persist with these idiots enforcing there own laws on land that belongs to all of us (even the media, we are after all human beings aswell?.)
But as a freelance, who stands to make little money if any from covering climate camp, after all that i have heard from other togs and journalists about the hassle i’m not going to bother.
If it’s not the police, it’s the protesters. It’s all so boring, just let us do our job.
UPDATE: My employers AFP have just posted an edited version of this post onto their official blog here.
I’m guessing I’m about to get an onslaught from the world’s eco-protesters.. :0
A great piece of comment on your part Leon seems to have opened up a few extra seams of debate. What is abundantly clear to anyone who has worked in or with the media for any length of time is that trust has been (and continues to be) eroded between citizens and large news organisations.
However, of all the sections of journalism on this country, press photographers and photojournalists have been consistently the most objective, even-handed and self-regulated element. Photography is constrained in ways that text is not. The photographic community in the UK, whilst supportive of each other, is also the most outspoken critic of those who fabricate pictures or knowingly twist the situation to portray events misleadingly.
The problem in british journalism is higher up the “food chain” than reporters and photographers and consequently, any move made to restrict news-gatherers merely strengthens the hands of those who do not believe in fairness and objectivity.
Either one agrees with the basic principle of obeying the law, in which case, it is a public right of way and photographers should be free to document the protest as they see fit or one can choose to ignore the law in which case you would be hypocritical to expect photographers to abide by arbitrary rules.
A perfectly worded response there, Justin. Thanks for that. As I’m guessing you may have seen from the Yahoo blog I linked to above your comment, it’s saddening to see that over two thirds of the people who have commented truly believe that photographers are the embodiment of lies and deceit. The people that have openly called for the media to be strongly restricted and curbed are so convinced in their beliefs, it’s amazing we don’t face these kind of press controls at more events. Depressing stuff.
Thanks Leon. Photojournalism has been my life for more than twenty years. My first experience of real news was covering the protests at Stonehenge in the late eighties. On that first occasion of what might be described as public disorder it was the law I feared rather than the protesters. I was repeatedly hit in the face with my own camera by a policeman holding onto the lens.
Photojournalists have always been under assault from all sides because of the power of images and their ability to cross boundaries of culture or language.
Now we face restrictions from the police who routinely break the law on the most spurious grounds to prevent photographers from working. So it saddens but does not surprise me to learn that even those who would outwardly espouse freedom lack the intellectual rigor to live with the consequences of those liberties.
The police must be laughing their socks off to know that they have a new ally in the fight against press freedom!
The Yahoo comments are depressing for the fact that they focus on your remarks rather than the restrictions but in the end, ours is not a business for those who seek popularity.
It is our job to be objective, honest, friendly where appropriate but not friends. Not to the police, not to the protestors, and certainly not to our bosses and editors.
Independence and integrity don’t win friends or thanks and yet it is pretty much the best thing about the job – go figure!
The majority of this country’s newspapers continue to behave as though they are in some desperate popularity contest. The knock on effects are that we are the ones who get the brunt of the public anger and suspicion – such is life.
In Iran, Zimbabwe and countless nations, people are risking their lives for what they believe. In Britain we can’t even risk having our picture taken if we can’t control how it will be used.
We are destined to become an irrelevant little island off the coast of France if we do not stand up for our basic freedoms and when that happens, all the protesting in the world will do us no good because we will have forfeited the right to be taken seriously.
No doubt there are some very poignant points in this debate but I’ll head back to the beginning and ask a question about this particular snippet: “Again, UK law says if someone is in public and not on private property and as long as they’re over 16”
How are all the men (and some women no doubt) with the big lenses ensuring the safety of the under 16’s in public places? What guidelines are in place?
I’m sure many an honest punter has been hauled before a judge only to use the immortal defence: “Sorry your honour but she looked older and told me she was seventeen.”
At what point does self restriction and inner morality go out the window? To highlight this comment – I’m referring to the Emma Watson incident. Now she’s no longer jail bait – is she just bait?
My opinions are irrelevant – only answers are.
One word: Professionalism. The photographers that I work with who work for reputable agencies and newspapers know the law and know how to respect it. If someone is under 16, parental consent is required. If the person looks under 16, then it’s the photographer’s responsibility to ensure that they are either over 16 or consent has been given. Like any aspect of human life, there will be photographers out there who choose to ignore this or have never bothered to learn the laws but this happens everywhere in life. The photographer has the responsibility to ensure that they themselves act within the law.
I’m not quite sure where you’re coming from with your questions and statements to be honest. How some members of the public and tabloid media view Emma Watson doesn’t seem to have much to do with my thoughts on a group of protestors trying to impose non-legal limitations on news-gathering.
Opinions are never irrelevant. Confusing, maybe, but not irrelevant!
Laws will always be bent, broken and pushed to the limit.
The word “LEGAL” has many connotations. After all it’s just one group inflicting pressure on another group expecting the weaker group to conform.
I’ve read in depth what you’ve written and whilst I profess to be no “Deanna Troi” there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that you’re one of the good guys in this world.
Like all who live in this polluted land – we’ve adopted certain traits and view points that belong to the “herd”
If you are to be the Jewel in the dirt (perceived by the public) don’t hide behind laws dictated to you by others… make your own assumptions and stand by them irrespective of the consequences.