mewcomm

Going to cover a riot? Man UP!

“Civil Disobedience”, a  “riot”, an “unruly mob”, “hooligans”……….all music to a news photographer’s eyes and ears.  The chaos, unpredictability, the pathos, of angry, emotional crowds of people. And Yes, the DANGER!  These environments are among the most exciting to capture moments of anarchy, humanity, cruelty and even amusement.

Watching the scenes in Egypt today, I found myself flashing back on what I would do were I to join the photographic fray. A partial primer.

What would I take in addition to my camera package?  A waist pack, with a Flashlight (LED), Soft Gloves, clean rags or hankies, water bottles (as many as you can easily carry), a cap and clear eye protection a hand held radio with pre loaded law enforcement and public safety frequencies (analog and digital), maps (no not your iPhone map) a paper blow up of the 25/50 square blocks around the area of the event (laminated in plastic), a hard hat (optional) and any must have prescribed medications. ( You may plan 3 hours at the Demo and end up in Jail for 3 days. Take your meds! And throw in a bottle of asprin too! Do I really even need to mention food?)

 Dress in sturdy pants (no shorts) long sleeves, socks and light weight ankle high shoes (Merrells ). And dress for the climate.

Important Option:  A gas mask. If you have no training or experience in the use of Gas protection, and you have the time (and money) then do it. Train with CS gas, and expose yourself to it under accepted training practices.  There are many videos for gas training. Do your homework and buy/rent/ or borrow the gear, otherwise, go it the old fashion way. Take your chances.

Press Pass (what’s that you say, you’re a “Citizen Journalist”? NO “real” press pass?) Be imaginative go to Google Images search PRESS Pass take a template and make your own, laminate it and go forth) Hell even Flickr has a “Press Pass”.  Everyone is a journalist! (I say that derisively!)  Now, don’t get carried away. Make it clean and professional in appearance and do not misrepresent yourself.  Often an official appearing badge will get you cleared into restricted areas that otherwise you’d be denied.

Covering a potentially violent demo is all about judgment. And luck!  Want to stand on the top of that  garbage truck for a better view of Police busting heads in the park nearby? Go ahead and if the truck takes off and you break your leg you knew the risk. Still, taking chances can yield visual dividends. Dare smartly!

Think and act responsibly. It doesn’t take a social psychologist to read a crowd’s mood. And an otherwise restrained group can turn into a hostile mob in a few seconds. Remain Situationally AWARE! Watch your surroundings. Do NOT “pal around with demonstrators”. They are NOT your friends. You are there to cover the event.  No matter your politics you’ll be better served by remaining neutral in your actions.  No “high fives” or “glad handing” with participants. The “perception” of favoritism or editorial bias is easy to misconstrue. Be careful!  Likewise you are not there to “be friends with the Police” (way too many young reporters these days, think of themselves as allies of the Police. ) Further, hostile elements in a crowd of demonstrators may well interpret your behavior as being sympathetic or supportive of the “state”.  Do as law enforcement instructs, say “Yes, Sir” “No, maam” and then move on and find a way around them and get back to covering the chaos of the event.
 
DON’T run from Tear gas! Relax. Check which way the wind is blowing. (And are the police advancing on your position?!) CS gas won’t kill you. Yes, it burns, yes it’s uncomfortable. Yes it may make you sick and give you a maximum headache. So what? You didn’t come to this event to feel good. You came to cover it. Man up!  Practice with gas before hand, just as military and law enforcement do. Learn to quickly put on your gas mask and properly clear and fit it.  NO gas mask? Cover your face, mouth, nose and eyes as best you can. Then pour clean water into your eyes and NEVER touch your eyes/face with your hands!  Then reload, check your batteries and media and move out!  Find the story!  Keep moving!

TIP: Watch the Police Tactical Commander on the Street. They are  key.  Locate their Command post. Often "detainees" are held in a temporary staging area. Find it. If  possible get the tactical radio frequency of all Public safety and law enforcement to monitor their actions. ( this is highly unlikely anymore as many cities have moved their radios to Digitally encrypted transmission systems.)  Still it’s worth the look.

Each demonstration is different. Go to many. The vast majority are not violent. (thus less adrenaline). But you’ll learn with each event and one hopes get better at “covering” this kind of visual opportunity. There are many additional methods and means of planning to cover a demo. What is the route?: Have you done a recon?  Where are buildings you can get access to for high shots? Do a multi-team Shoot with Radio communications between photographers. (Don't count on the Net or Cell service being up.)  Anyway Go forth!  Have a blast! 

Disclaimer: Use this information at your own risk.

The author covered many demonstrations (some violent/most not) in Washington DC and elsewhere as a (20 year)  television news cameraman.

In the 'analog era' they called it theft.

Cruising Google news, I stumble upon a Gizmodo  blurb with a direct rip off of a celebrated Winston Churchill quote in the first sentence. The practice of plagiarism is wide spread though efforts are being made daily to discredit the "permission" culture.  Proponents of the "remix"of content and "mashups'  use intellectual "pretzel logic" (thank you Steely Dan) to justify their actions.    Google's Open Source Program manager  claims such sharing ("stealing"?)  will "make the world a better place for us all" [Sometimes these Net utopians make  me gag] The intellectual rationale for this is led by distinguished Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig who founded the 'Creative Commons" legal framework to justify the taking of other people's ideas. "Lessig presents this as a desirable ideal and argues, among other things, that the health, progress, and wealth creation of a culture is fundamentally tied to this participatory remix process". And others have pushed this concept to absurd feel good lengths. 

I won't engage these zealots. But I don't think even Professor Lessig would accept a direct rip-off quote from one of the most important historical figures of the 20th century. Would he?

 

 

Non Profit Journalism? Maybe, but it's hard to see.

Can "non profit" models of journalism be effective?  This concept is being offered up to fill the void of newspapers that are laying off investigative reporters "left and right". I'm doubtful.

Blogger and media observer Jaclyn Schiff asks,  "What are the limitations" of non profit journalism (serious journalism that is)?

In an online editorial  Charles Lewis & Bruce Sievers   "All the News that's fit to Finance" accurately describe the dire straits ad supported journalism faces.   The business is imploding faster than most of us could have imagined.  The Non-Profit model as called for by various news thinkers is a good option.  But here's where I'm skeptical.

One of the greatest investigative journalism stories of my generation (I'm not talking about  Watergate!  :) ) was the Pentagon Papers crisis. An event Jaclyn surely studied as a student at GWU!  The story was broken by Neil Sheehan of the NY Times and subsequent releases by Daniel Schorr of CBS news. It caused a "Firestorm" in Washington. It was a domestic crisis of enormous magnitude over the Vietnam war  involving the White House, DoD and the Justice department and the press itself. And it challenged the very rationale of a free press and it's role in our nation.

I remember watching Schorr ( I had to go to the library for the NY Times in those days) on TV reporting  the story in the summer of 1971 as a just home from Vietnam student at the University of Texas. It was stunning to watch and read.  In  that analog era, to hear the story reported by Daniel Schorr of CBS news gave it a powerful thrust! This wasn't just anyone it was CBS News and the NY Times!   

So why couldn't a Non-Profit vehicle report such a story now?  They could.  But without the institutional infrastructure of the "Grey Lady" or the huge impact of being one of only three TV networks I believe the story would have far less impact.  With respect to Naomi Klein (Branding matters!).  I knew even then that the NY Times was staffed with serious journalists and a commitment to the highest ethical standards. And moreover they would risk jail to publish such a story!

Could a non-profit news vehicle develop a reputation of journalism excellence? Maybe. And with a wide following?  Unknown.  I think that niche/non-profit reporting while valid will struggle to be heard above the high velocity cacophony of information out there. And the last issue: "Is serious journalism even valued any longer?" Valued enough for citizens to voluntarily pay for it?  I think we know the answer.

I don't know how this plays out. (Like you I'm watching!).  But there is a supreme irony in that we now have more information choices than ever and we're wondering whether the nation is better served. 

Neil Sheehan went on to write "A Bright and Shinning Lie" about Vietnam (and for which he won a Pulitzer prize).  It was a mesmerizing read from a world class reporter. Will we have "world class" reporters anymore? Can they "break out" and be heard? And recognized for their work? Or will they drown in the torrent of words, images and sounds that flood into our lives each day?

"more powerful for good and bad than the edicts of kings and legislatures"

So as this non-stop financial markets story continues I flashed back to one of the most important books I ever read in college.  I dusted it off and started reading mid week.  By the time the political leadership had reached their alleged "breakthrough" I was well into into it.

An excerpt:

"This  is a book about a handful of men with a curious claim to fame. By all the rules of schoolboy history books, they were nonentities: they commanded no armies, sent no men to their deaths, ruled no empires, took little part in history-making decisions. A few of them achieved renown, but none was ever a national hero; a few were roundly abused but none was ever quite a national villain. Yet what they did was more decisive for history than many acts of statesmen who basked in brighter glory, often more profoundly disturbing than the shuttling of armies back and forth across frontiers, more powerful for good and bad than the edicts of kings and legislatures. It was this: they shaped and swayed men's minds."

If you have even the slightest intellectual curiosity about economics and history this engaging and fantastically written book will take you on a journey with a group of men who changed the world.

Read it. You'll be glad you did. Eight dollars used on Amazon.

"I don't like you! Really I don't!"

Why do so many Twitterers follow dozens and dozens of other Twitterers?  I don't get it. Yes Twitter has burst on the scene in the past year and offers some intriguing new ways of communicating socially. The truncated 140 character limit keeps the verbose reined in and the ability to link to various other forms of media is also useful. But how much of it do you really want to see?

Indeed why aren't people more selective?  I don't want to follow lots of people. When I first received a  "John Doe is following you on Twitter" I was deluded into believing that someone actually cared about what I might have to say! It was a Sally Field moment:  "I can't deny the fact that you like me! You really really like me!"  It's ridiculous!  Take a random look at active Twitterers. Many follow dozens and dozens of other Twitterers! 

When I receive a "following alert", I take a peek at the person's postings. If I feel they are especially bright, perceptive, witty or unique, I follow. The majority don't make the cut. I don't like them. Further, I dump those whose postings fail to live up to their initial promise.

Why would one just follow anyone else just because they're following you? Is there some sense of reciprocity? Do you feel "guilty" for not following someone who follows you? (I don't)   Do you like everyone you meet walking down the street? Of course not. (FYI for you Ham Radio operators, I have never  sent a QSL card  just because someone requested one.I send  cards only to those who I engage with in some form of meaningful/amusing or interesting discourse.)

Most Twitterers need to cleanse their "following" box and cull down to a few that fit their interests or curiosity and discard the many who bring so little creativity to the party.  Engage with a small group on an intellectually stimulating level.   The rest are just noise.