1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A question of ethics

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Mark, Feb 18, 2012.

  1. Mark

    Mark Well-Known Member

    Courtesy of insomnia, I've just revisited a couple of blogs that I read on a daily basis. One in particular stood out, the blog is by the BBC's Phil Coomes, and this entry is entitled "A question of ethics: Photographers in the spotlight". I think it is worth a read.
  2. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    The worst offenders are usually the so-called "amateur papparazi". The sooner such slime get run out of own the better as they give all photographers a bad name.

    It's all very well to blame certain sections of the media but those members of the public who've avidly gobbled up any "celeb" gossip are the fuel that feeds this odious fire.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2012
  3. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    At some point, pursuing someone with or without a camera or staking out their house (though positioned on public property) becomes stalking - a criminal offence. The issue is perfectly well catered for in current law; no need to add new laws or new powers, just enforce those that already exist.

    Fact of the matter is, some photographers sometimes behave badly. They're no different to anyone else in that respect.
  4. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    OT but, the title reminded me of a Two Ronnies item;

    "... and later we'll be talking about ethics when we're joined by a man from Thuthex."

    Carry on. ;)
  5. Fen

    Fen The Destroyer

  6. BikerMike

    BikerMike Well-Known Member

    Ask most people what is, and what is not unacceptable, intrusive behaviour and they would broadly agree.

    Ask someone who earns their living from getting exclusive pics of celebrities and the answer would be very different.

    Therein lies the problem - financial incentive

    The photographer might even admit that he would not like someone do to him what he does to them, but hey, it's his job. He is in competition with others, each trying to capture the most sensational image because each is trying to feed his family. If he doesn't do it, someone else will.

    He has no choice, given the demands of the press and the economic relationship he is in with his editor/agency or whoever buys them.

    And just who is buying these pics? Well I never, about 7.5 million upstanding British citizens every day in 2011. That figure has now dropped to under 3 million in Jan 2012.

    If you really care at all about this issue, just stop buying copies of the gutter press, and the issue will go away by itself. If there is no market for these pics, there will be no incentive to take them. Simples!

    Regards, Mike
  7. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    til we get THE SUN ON SUNDAY.....:eek:
  8. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    To be honest. This is nothing new.

    It has nothing to do with whether it is digital or not.

    If we think back to Diana days all film shooting. So the ethics question has not changed.

    There were freelancers then.

    What has changed is everyone is now carrying a camera ie the mobile phone.

    In the past you had to make the decision to pick up the camera before walking out of the home.

    Photographer faced the same question during the Vietnam war and other wars since.

    But if a photographer does not take the shot then there is no visual news is there?

    History loses a piece of the jigsaw.

    The reason why Miller ended up being chased is because she ran away.

    This from a actress who has appeared totally naked for the cameras. :confused:

    Why not just stand your ground and take it? Why not try talking to the photographers.

    If they block your path call the police. Photographers are not above the law. They do have limits. Just like anyone without a camera cannot block your way or touch you.

    Most famous people making millions have security.

    It not that famous people are public property it is just they are in a public place in which we all can be photographed.

    Just they are more interesting. :)

    If the greater public are bothered by how press photographers are working.

    Simple don't buy any papers then. Use the power of not giving papers and magazine your money in the first place.

    To me it seems a paradox to claim privacy in a public space surrounded by CCTV camera. :D
  9. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    But we're not talking about people carrying mobile phones here. It's chancers who have the wherewithal to buy a high end DSLR kit and spend their time hanging around prime locations to 'monster' any celeb they see.

    You're surely not trying to equate photographers covering real news and the hunting of anybody who's been in the public eye to make money?

    I'm not a fan of Sienna Miller but the one example you give is work - a weird kind perhaps but work still the same - and the other is palpably not. You sound as if you're trying to defend the indefensible. By all means take pictures of someone famous if they do something newsworthy; actress goes shopping/goes to restaurant/leaves her home, etc is not news however much you might try to justify it. A person in the public eye does not become your property to exploit as you see fit. :(

    The police these days have so far down the tubes they'd probably just say it was a civil matter and they won't attend.
  10. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    I suppose we should be thankful our press togs aren't as bad as those in some other countries. 20 years ago, I was in Greece, where accusations were flying around about press photographers being employed to follow up tip-offs via mobile phones, to photograph serious accidents. There were even rumours of ambulances slowing down, so the togs could get in and take their shots, before they arrived.
  11. BikerMike

    BikerMike Well-Known Member

    Once again, it's all down to financial incentive. If people weren't making money from these shots, no-one would behave so shamefully.

    "The love of money is the root of all evil"

  12. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    Not sure about that. I reckon there must be scores of people aiming cameras at celebs for every one who actually makes a living out of selling the photos (whether on a freelance basis or as salaried staff).

Share This Page