Photographers attacked.

Trump should be tried for Insurrection. The police at the Capitol have a lot to answer for as well.

Dave
 
If you were to watch it you'd see it's not "Political". I don't post political threads.
I think we all post "political" simply because politics is,,,
late Middle English: from Old French politique ‘political’, via Latin from Greek politikos, from politēs ‘citizen’, from polis ‘city’.

(Oxford Languages)
...so everything is in some way political.

However, in this case, the video isn't overtly about the views of one group or another but about what happens when the lunatics take over the asylum and ordinary people get caught in the middle.
 
For balance there are also vids of photographers and journalists being attacked during the "mostly peaceful" demonstrations, riots and lootings a while back. My own view, condemn all violence and prosecute offenders equally but just because it's on film doesn't mean that'll always happen.
 
If only they had had the same amount of security outside the capitol building as they did during the BLM protests then maybe things would have been different. But white folks are law abiding citizens aren't they.

Most of the people in those riots protests were white.
 
During the BLM protests the National Guard was posted on the steps of the capitol building to protect it.

During the Trump inspired protests it was just the normal security protecting the capitol building. Yet it was these white thugs that invaded the capitol building. Quite ironic don’t you think.

And that was the point of my previous post.

I just get tired of being a member of the only minority group it seems acceptable to label, belittle and attack.

Remember the song, "and the creed and the colour and the name wont matter" I don't care about colour or political affiliation. We should be able to condemn the violence without first looking at race and politics before deciding if we should.

Self imposed ban from this thread now in effect :D
 
During the BLM protests the National Guard was posted on the steps of the capitol building to protect it.

During the Trump inspired protests it was just the normal security protecting the capitol building. Yet it was these white thugs that invaded the capitol building. Quite ironic don’t you think.

And that was the point of my previous post.

If you mean the photo that is often shown, with uniformed guards lined up, it wasn't of The Capitol.
 
No shock that photographers were attacked, many in that crowd were not nice people. I hear they smeared the worst thing that came to hand all over the place and some poor innocent cleaner had to wash it off next morning. Filthy trash
 
I think Jared just used this incident(riot) as a vehicle to show some interseting photographs of the event.

Every protest for whatever reason runs a risk for any photographers in attendance as a photo Journo.

If you want great shots you have to take big risks. That's always been known.

So what's new Jared.

It is also worth remembering that hundreds of people at that incident will have photographed and filmed many fantastic shots on there smart phones. Because of that the requirement for a professional photo journalist to get involved in these dangerous situations is now questionable.

Why get involved in an incident that is going to have thousnds of images taken by the people involved that are great even when taken on a smartphone. 20 yrs ago yes, there was a definite need for professional journalist to take these risks, but not now.

Those photo journalists were there because they wanted to be, not because they had to be. Those days are gone, everyone has a camera now.
 
Why get involved in an incident that is going to have thousnds of images taken by the people involved that are great even when taken on a smartphone. 2
Because the PJs photos will have a different point of view and will reach different news outlets.
 
I think Jared just used this incident(riot) as a vehicle to show some interseting photographs of the event.

Every protest for whatever reason runs a risk for any photographers in attendance as a photo Journo.

If you want great shots you have to take big risks. That's always been known.

So what's new Jared.

It is also worth remembering that hundreds of people at that incident will have photographed and filmed many fantastic shots on there smart phones. Because of that the requirement for a professional photo journalist to get involved in these dangerous situations is now questionable.

Why get involved in an incident that is going to have thousnds of images taken by the people involved that are great even when taken on a smartphone. 20 yrs ago yes, there was a definite need for professional journalist to take these risks, but not now.

Those photo journalists were there because they wanted to be, not because they had to be. Those days are gone, everyone has a camera now.
I've shot lots of protests in the UK, and one or two peaceful protests in Washington DC. The risk to photographers and journalists is generally low. Where there's been trouble, the policing has nearly always been effective at containing it. But this wasn't a protest. It was a violent attempt to subvert democracy. And in this situation the difficult and now dangerous role of journalists is more important than ever. Trump spent both of his election campaigns and the four years of his lamentable presidency training his followers to hate the 'fake news media'. Instead, his supporters could have their own 'alternative facts' and live in a toxic bubble untroubled by objective truth. The iPhone footage taken by a MAGA-hatted rioter who regards 'the MSM' as the enemy is worthless as reportage, though I'm sure it plays well on whatever social media Trump is still allowed on. The journalists needed to be there to tell the rest of us what actually happened, not the twisted version extremists who were prepared to attack the media physically would have given us.
 
I thought on the whole it wasnt a bad video but did get a but fed up with him complaining about the rioters damaging peoples equipment, rioters by thier very notion tend not to care for peoples property so why expect them not to damage camera equipment. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out that if you go to a riot with a camera theres a good chance it will get damaged
 
I think Jared just used this incident(riot) as a vehicle to show some interseting photographs of the event.

Every protest for whatever reason runs a risk for any photographers in attendance as a photo Journo.

If you want great shots you have to take big risks. That's always been known.

So what's new Jared.

It is also worth remembering that hundreds of people at that incident will have photographed and filmed many fantastic shots on there smart phones. Because of that the requirement for a professional photo journalist to get involved in these dangerous situations is now questionable.

Why get involved in an incident that is going to have thousands of images taken by the people involved that are great even when taken on a smartphone. 20 yrs ago yes, there was a definite need for professional journalist to take these risks, but not now.

Those photo journalists were there because they wanted to be, not because they had to be. Those days are gone, everyone has a camera now.

Well, it's a good question. It's true, but the standard of photography in situations like that can be awful and confused. You might not have a clue what's going on. There's a need for trained photographers to capture striking images, even in situations such as that. Those are the ones that will go down in history. It needs to be remembered, just not with a jumble of images.
 
I think Jared just used this incident(riot) as a vehicle to show some interseting photographs of the event.

Every protest for whatever reason runs a risk for any photographers in attendance as a photo Journo.

If you want great shots you have to take big risks. That's always been known.

So what's new Jared.

It is also worth remembering that hundreds of people at that incident will have photographed and filmed many fantastic shots on there smart phones. Because of that the requirement for a professional photo journalist to get involved in these dangerous situations is now questionable.

Why get involved in an incident that is going to have thousnds of images taken by the people involved that are great even when taken on a smartphone. 20 yrs ago yes, there was a definite need for professional journalist to take these risks, but not now.

Those photo journalists were there because they wanted to be, not because they had to be. Those days are gone, everyone has a camera now.


Talking utter balls about a subject that you don't understand again?

There's no way on earth that some random person with a phone would have got the iconic shots that Win McNamee of Getty or Adam Gray of SWNS shot.

In fact proper photojournalism is needed more now than ever.
 
I haven't watched it, I find him rather annoying. But I think the point is that they were attacked not because they were togs but because they were press...and the whole Fakenews persecution of the press and construction of a mad alternative reality (eg QAnon) is extremely worrying. To put it mildly.
 
Well, it's a good question. It's true, but the standard of photography in situations like that can be awful and confused. You might not have a clue what's going on. There's a need for trained photographers to capture striking images, even in situations such as that. Those are the ones that will go down in history. It needs to be remembered, just not with a jumble of images.
Striking images don’t necessarily show what is actually happening. Stone throwing in Palestine, or toppling of dictators statues, for example.
 
Striking images don’t necessarily show what is actually happening. Stone throwing in Palestine, or toppling of dictators statues, for example.

No, but they are the ones we remember. We can probably all recall some horrific images from Vietnam, for instance. That's as it should be, and it informs our opinion of the right, or wrong of the time. I honestly doubt shaky phone images will have the same impact in years to come.
 
Those photo journalists were there because they wanted to be, not because they had to be. Those days are gone, everyone has a camera now.

I can have a bit of sympathy for the ones inside who wouldnt be expecting anyhting to happen.. But the ones outside themselves dressed in protective gear know exactly what they are letting themselves in for and decided to go for it... Its not nice to see but the sympathy level is low from me :)
 
You only had to look at some of the people who were attending that protest to see the way it was going. When something like that kicks off it becomes anarchy and bad things can (and do) happen. An experienced photojournalist would surely realise that and understand the potential outcome, that's they price they pay for getting the money shot.
 
You only had to look at some of the people who were attending that protest to see the way it was going. When something like that kicks off it becomes anarchy and bad things can (and do) happen. An experienced photojournalist would surely realise that and understand the potential outcome, that's they price they pay for getting the money shot.

There was a photo of a guy who had homemade handcuffs made from cable ties, like what were his intentions, what was he expecting to happen.
 
I think Jared just used this incident(riot) as a vehicle to show some interseting photographs of the event.

Every protest for whatever reason runs a risk for any photographers in attendance as a photo Journo.

If you want great shots you have to take big risks. That's always been known.

So what's new Jared.

It is also worth remembering that hundreds of people at that incident will have photographed and filmed many fantastic shots on there smart phones. Because of that the requirement for a professional photo journalist to get involved in these dangerous situations is now questionable.

Why get involved in an incident that is going to have thousnds of images taken by the people involved that are great even when taken on a smartphone. 20 yrs ago yes, there was a definite need for professional journalist to take these risks, but not now.

Those photo journalists were there because they wanted to be, not because they had to be. Those days are gone, everyone has a camera now.

Camera phones do mean a lot more is captured but the quality is missing. As the people taking the photos on their phones own the copyright how do you expect the press to get them? There were photos out in the press whilst the event was still ongoing.

You also don’t get the same impartiality you’d get with a photojournalist compared to someone in the crowd. Camera phones are great for the police trying to prosecute everyone afterwards as there will be plenty of photographic evidence (always find it weird that people document themselves and other protesters and make the job of the police to prosecute them so much easier).

I will always remember that photo of the woman jumping from a burning building during riots in Croydon a few years ago. I doubt anyone carrying out the rioting would have captured such an iconic photo. There will be some iconic photos taken during the unrest at the capitol.

Capturing civil unrest (and war) is probably one of the last events that photojournalists beat the general public with a phone camera.
Being in amongst the protesters probably isn’t the safest place and comes with risks as shown in the video.

I can have a bit of sympathy for the ones inside who wouldnt be expecting anyhting to happen.. But the ones outside themselves dressed in protective gear know exactly what they are letting themselves in for and decided to go for it... Its not nice to see but the sympathy level is low from me :)
The woman photojournalist attacked inside the capitol building likely falls within that bracket of being inside the building covering the events inside and likely didn’t expect what happened to put her at risk. I doubt anyone inside the capitol expected it to be breached like it was. What should be one of the most secure buildings in the US was pretty easily breached. There were huge failings in security for a government building.

I stay away from political threads.
Way way too much politics in the world these days, its almost become a religion.
The only people making it political are people replying to this thread. The video covers the role of photojournalists covering civil unrest and the risks they take knowing or even unknowingly. This video could have been any civil unrest event in recent years. It just happens the most recent was this event. If we kept to the subject the OP raised it wouldn’t be political.
 
Back
Top