Take the pictures and make them into one of those photo collages over Bush’s face. “Look! I found MeeMaw!”
lieu. Not all photos need to to be grouped in “Died because of flooding.” or “Died waiting inside the Superdome.” But you do what you can.
Date the photos. Caption the photos with what information’s known. We can surmise things based on circumstances. We can assume bodies found in the initial 48 hours died after the levees broke from drowning. If a drowned body’s found in a tree it’s because of flooding and receding flood waters. A body pulled out of an attic with little composition after seven days might indicate a death because of a delay in rescue efforts. If a body is found with several bullet holes that may have occurred during the looting. You photograph autopsies and indentification of the so-called secret forensics storage facility where the dead are being tagged.
I think they should take shitloads of pictures and post them up on the White House fence facing inward. Do the same thing where Blanco lives too, but that bitch probably skipped country.
Fucking morans.
Is there some kind of compromise? Take the pictures, but don’t print them on the front page of every newspaper-save them for a special edition documentary type of thing?
I don’t have a problem with FEMA saing “Mrs. Photographer, we don’t have room for you in this boat/helocopter/whatever”. FEMA is under no obligation to provide the press with transportation.
And I don’t see how “need to see” or “don’t need to see” plays into this decisions at all. The only question to ask is: Does the government have the authority, per the constitution, to forbid photographers from taking pictures in this instance? The anwer is “No”. This is not a super-secret weapons devlopment lab, it’s an American city. Case closed.
Agreed, (though I think that “no room” is bullshit.) I suspect the restrictions would go much further than that, as in not allowing photojournalists to accompany FEMA workers inside flood-ravaged homes to extract bodies. Based on my take on FEMA’s “request”, that ain’t gonna happen. Obviously I have a problem with that.
Why should photographers be allowed into (private) homes? If the homes are comdemned, only rescue workers should be allowed in. If the homes are not condemned, they are private property, and the photographers sholdl obtain permission from the owners first. If they have permission to enter, then photograph away!
I like this. Take the pictures. Throw 'em together with all the stories in a nice little hardcover edition with all of the proceeds going to help the victims of this disaster. Release it right about the time the public and the press lose interest and give the country a fresh sense of outrage so we can be sure that the people responsible get their feet held to the fire for a good long time.
Because photojournalists aren’t just photographers, John, and these homes – condemned or not, structurally unsound or noty – have been abandoned. C’mon.
I got in last week with emergency supplies for relatives and to take some of my relatives out. Old people sure can be pissy when you try to take them away from the only home they have ever known. Simply put, most would rather die there instead of leave.
Anyway I saw the dead, both human and animal. I saw plenty. Fuck the press. If the press feels the need to ride around and take pictures of dead people to boost their ratings then fuck them. Anyone feeling the need to see pictures of dead people can go fuck themselves also. If you feel that asking the press to not take pictures of people’s dead friends and relatives somehow harms your freedom or is a “cover-up”, well fuck you too.
“Photojournalists” have no more right to enter my home than a burglar does.
Cite? Abandoned implies the people never intend to come back. You have no idea which ones have been “abondoned” and which ones haven’t. They’re still private property, and any private citizen entering is trespassing.
The next time you go on vacation, let me know, and I’ll send over some photographers to take pictures of the inside of your house. After all, you “abandoned” it, didn’t you?
Oh, I also forgot what you originally posted:
So, if I die in my home tonight, a “photojournalist” can assume that I abondoned my house and let himself in to take pictures? Come on!!
Yeah, what is it with those morans anyway? Wyy do they go back to Mor, where they belong!
John Mace.
-
Is there a reason why you have the occupation photojournalist in quotation marks as if it were a disreputable, fake profession?
-
Abandoned is still a prefectly adequate description.
-
Most of New Orleans flooding was so extensive city officials predict now- abandoned properties, especially rental and leased apartments and homes – will never be occupied by former tenants. Any bodies left inside are a health hazard and on a scale of this magnitude, absolutely newsworthy. Trespassing in an abandoned home when there’s no theft, assault,arson or vandalism on the tresspasser’s part is not a crime police concern themselves with. Your damaged property may be privately owned, with rights, but in the real world no one’s going to give a shit and all kinds of people – looters, the police, squatters – will be all up in there.
-
If your death were a murder or bizarre suicide and the news crews somehow got there ahead of the police and you’re important enough to warrant trespassing, yeah. If your death tonight were typical of dozens or hundreds of others in your community, probrably, yeah. Either a photojournalist or a crime scene photographer will document the scene. This is a fact of life.
But that’s bleed and lead reporting, and not really the nature of the photography I’ve been talking about the last few days, one that devastated a region, evacuated a city and has the country embroiled in debate about the inadeqaucy of city, state and federal response. This is documentary photography, much like documentation of war dead or social uprising. So your place in history as a dead body means little in the face of a little unlikely-to-be-prosecuted criminal trespass by a news photographer – hell, even an amatuer photographer – in the wake of a natural disaster.
Hi. I’m new to the BBQ pit, and I don’t really want to come off as a jerk. So forgive me for differing.
But it seems to me that it’s common knowledge that Matthew Brady, one of the first successful photographers, not long after the invetion of daguerrotypes and tintypes (caveat: I’m not sure what technical process he used) photographed the dead at Antietam Battelfield. Antietam was fought in 1862. I’ve seen these photos in books, and the faces are potentially recognizable. It’s also known that Brady rearranged the dead bodies into more dramatic poses.
Therefore, with all due respect, I submit that from the moment photography became technically feasible, there has NOT been “a time when a request like this needn’t have been made.” Furthermore Brady’s work was generally well-received despite his having published these pictures, and he certainly didn’t discover that “anyone who printed these pictures would become a pariah”.
Sailboat
No, just that you made it sound that photojournalists were some higher form of life. Photographer is “a perfectly adequate description” of what they are.
Well, I absolutely disagree with that statement. So, as you can see, I won’t agree with any conclusions based on the assumption that the homes are abandonded. If you have a cite to back up your claim, I’m all ears. With all due respect, I don’t think you are qualified to make that determination yourself.
Abandonment is a legal definition which requires a determination by a court of law. But even if a the occupant has abandonded a domicile, that doesn’t mean that the occupant owns the domicile, and that it becomes public property.
Photojournalists have every right to take pictures of bodies being carried out of domiciles, but they have no right to enter one.
See, this is the mentality that is bugging me about this. That it’s an either or situation, either the pictures are published, or nothing will get done properly. In other words gruesome pictures are the only thing that will make sure that Americans act.
I disagree.
Actually, it’s “a thousand words”.
Becuase in that case, the pictures themselves were documenting the actual wrongdoing, or at least part of it.
For your analogy to be apt the pictures would have to somehow be representative of FEMA managers doing whatever it is that created the delays which allegedly led to the increased mortality rates.
Pictures of the dead, no matter how many are not going to do that. Memos, written proof of someone having witnessed a person in charge not acting, or acting i n the wrong way is what will, or will in part.
The pictures prove only one thing, that those particular people in THAT particular photo, or sets of photos are dead, not whether or not imcompetence or the natural consequences of the hurricane made them that way.
**John Mace. ** I already conceded they have no right to trespass, but it’s at best a minor peril on the job and it happens all the time. I’ve done it and seen it done. Most times we’re only threatened with arrest, a few are actually arrested and convicted, and most times when convicted they only pay a nominal fine.
CanvasShoes. It’s not an either/or situation. It is about the public’s right to know and the responsibility of the press to document and preserve in words, interviews and pictures, history.
Way to take my words out of context. What I actually said was wouldn’t have made it less of a tragedy to those AFFECTED" meaning those whose loved ones still died, and those whose homes are still destroyed and so on.
In other words, a picture perfect response would have of COURSE rescued more people. But people would have still died, and it still would have been way too many, and horrific, sad and unspeakably tragic for those who would have still lost loved ones.
It was a Category 5 hurricane for God Sake, in the best of world’s only so much could be done, and in the best of worlds people would still be “outraged” and blaming someone for not “doing something”.
The most horrific “photo documentation” in the world can’t prevent, predict or cause to be harmless natural disasters when they occur.