Another Camera Seized

On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 05:37:17 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

The police were wrong in what they did, but let's not re-write the
story to make it a stronger case.

Sorry, Tony, I know a few photographers who are also reporters / writers, so
I tend to treat the two as interchangeable...

Photo-journalists usually work for magazines, wire services, or are
independent and are paid by submission. Some small newspapers expect
their reporters to also be photographers, but this guy was identified
as a photographer for a newspaper.

Before I went into the medical equipment field, I worked for the
Indianapolis Times (now defunct) and the Chicago Tribune. The
newspaper photographers I met (mostly in the Billy Goat Tavern in
Chicago; a hang-out for the newspaper people) confined their writing
to notes on the photgraphs they took.

They all had a tale about some news event where they were the only
newspaper person on the scene, but they phoned in their report of the
facts to the desk, and the desk wrote the story.

Of course, most newspaper reporting was done that way in those days.
Reporters reported. They didn't write the story. They phoned in the
stories or turned in their notes. The copy desk or a sub-editor wrote
the actual verbiage. The Hollywood image of the reporter slaving
away at a typewriter was just that: the Hollywood image. The
reporter might have typed out his notes or the outline of the story,
but the actual item that appeared in print was done by someone else or
heavily edited by someone else.

Newspaper reporters were not necessarily good writers. They were good
in the field, good in securing information, and good at developing
contacts. The best reporters were often good at getting the 5 Ws
(who, what, why, when, where), but not at the 6th: writing. There
were "investigative reporters" who did the whole thing, but most
newspaper copy was written by the copy editors.

(Exceptions to everything, of course. Some newspaper reporters were
excellent writers. The newspapers, though, didn't require this skill
if the other skills were present. The ability to develop contacts and
coax out statements out-weighed the ability to spell and write
grammatical copy.)

Things have changed, though. Newspapers are cutting budgets and
positions. Copy editors are an endangered species.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

[snip my own testimony]

I was tempted to snip a lot out of the message, just to get it
down to a more manageable size, but you make a number of good
points which I couldn't bring myself to snip out. So, I'll try
to lump a few points into each of a couple of responses and hope
I cover most of the bases...

Thanks for the acknowledgement. It's a pleasant surprise to talk to
someone reasonable instead of the more usual Usenet thing where so
many diss others simply because they don't agree with them.

First of all, I should clarify that I was not involved in the
incident, nor am I a professional journalist. I was just
bringing to the group's attention the breaking news story of a
reporter in Vancouver, Canada, who had a run-in with some police
officers while reporting on a police shooting.

Oops! Just fell off the table here, Dudley! Perhaps I should go back
and re-read what you said plus look at earlier posts in this thread
but for now, just color me confused.

If you're neither the person involved nor a jouralist yourself, how
could you have such in depth knowledge of the law and practice on all
of this?

Now, to illustrate that I try to practice what I preach, I'll
just relate as briefly as possible an incident which ocurred in
my younger days:

I was walking down the street, carrying a case of beer with a
couple of friends. A cruiser full of cops (3) drove by and
decided to check us out to see if we were of age. In Alberta,
legal age is 18, and I was about 23 at the time.

The cops asked me for my identification, so I asked them why we
were being stopped.

In our country, the police have the right and the power to ask for
identification at any time, IF they at least have a probable cause. I
can't judge how old you looked at the time, but perhaps the cops
thought you might be marginal or simply wanted to harass you some.

The lead officer said it was a routine check to verify that we
were old enough to be in possession of alcohol. I asked him
what crime we had committed. He said that it is an offence to
possess alcohol when under the age of 18, and I might be
under-aged, so he had to check.

I told him that routine checks weren't good enough, he had to
have a strong belief that I was under-aged in order to ask for
ID. He said he just needed to suspect...

I told him I wasn't going to give him any ID, since he didn't
have any grounds to think we were under-aged, and I turned to
walk away.

Dudley, of course you need to do what you think is best and right for
you here, but I would NEVER have popped off to the police that way, I
would have said OK and gave them my driver's license as ID to avoid
the very real possibility of actually getting into trouble rather
fast.

The cop grabbed my wrist to cuff me, but I pulled my arm away
and spun around, striking the officer on the jaw with as hard a
blow as I could muster. His head spun to the left, his hat went
flying, and the scrap was on.

Yes, the three cops took me down, and, yes, they kicked the crap
out of me in the cellblock, but, things didn't go so good for
them in court.

You do realize, I hope, that you were guilting of failure to identify
yourself to the police when asked in a lawful manner, resisting
arrest, assault, battery, and maybe some other charges, the
combination of which could put you behind bars for years.

When I brought it to the judges attention that one of the three
officers sat next to me in my grade 11 math class and knew how
old I was, the judge wasn't impressed.

Excuse me for taking you on here, but I'm not surprised. A judge has
no way of judging the veracity of your claim to know the officers and
perhaps hadn't yet had a chance to question them.

When delivering his verdict, the judge started by saying, "Mr.
Hanks, I cannot condone people going around and assaulting
police officers..." So, I thought I was in deep ****. But, his
next sentence was, Neither can I condone police officers who
exceed their authority... And, he kicked it out of court.

Again my apologies but I think you were DAMN lucky that the judge
determined that the cops had started by harassing you for no good
reason then had (apparently) used excessive force to restrain you
after you resisted and popped one of them.

Certainly, I was the target of some rather unrelenting police
attention, going so far as to be arrested for "tampering with a
motor vehicle" when I was car shopping after hours on a car lot.
The cop came up to me while I had the hood of an old Camarro
up, 15 minutes after the dealership had closed. Sales staff
were still in the showroom.

Dudley, just so you know, I myself have a rather short fuse and get
angry when provocated pretty easy. But, when it comes to the LEOs, I
turn meek as a lamb and attempt to talk my way out of trouble if at
all possible. I do NOT abandon my Constiutional rights and
protections in some lame attempt to finesse the fuzz but neither do I
flaunt my rights.

There's an interesting aspect of the legal system that is
specifically protected in our Bill of Rights called a writ of habeas
corpus, which means that an accused criminal has a right to be either
charged and allowed to speak to an attorney and petition for bail or
be released without being charged, the idea being to avoid the many
abuses of the Crown during our Colonial Period where citizens would
be arrested and jailed for indeterminate periods without ever being
charged, given a chance for bail or ever be tried.

Still, in modern times, when the cops think they need to, e.g., when
dealing with a member of organized crime, they will intentionally
side step habeas corpus and move a prisoner from precinct to precinct
within the 48 hours allowed by the Amendment. Thus, someone caught in
this web might be jailed for a LONG time and never be charged at all.

But, IF an ordinary citizen who in NO way deserves such treatment
sufficiently ****es off the cops, there have been cases where this
obvious kind of outrageous police abuse happens. Yes, eventually the
prisoner is freed or tried whichever is appropriate and yes, the cops
are suspended and may be charged on a number of counts, the the
hapless fool that was jailed more for being a smart ass than a guilty
felon still suffer for no good reason other than his big mouth.

Make any sense to you?

But, things have a way of working themselves out. The Crown's
own witness, the manager of the dealership, said, "No," when I
asked him if he cared whether people dropped by and popped the
hoods of cars after hours. He also said that he had personally
made several sales which had started in that sort of fashion.
Also, he said that the car had not been damaged. Of course, the
cop had to admit to the judge that I didn't have any tools on my
person when I was busted, so any tampering under the hood would
have been something done with my bare hands.

I've been accosted by dealershi people when attempting only to take
pictures of cars on their lot. I can usually side step a
confrontation by either asking permission in advance or telling a
white lie and saying that I was interested in a car like xxx and
wanted some pictures to look at when I got home. That usually works,
but I have still had kick back.

The issuue here is that there is NO express or implied right under
our First Amendment to take pictures of ANYTHING on private property
if the owner objects, as one did quite vocally. So, I would expect to
get into MAJOR trouble and likely be arrested for trespassing and
possibly vandalism for popping hoods after hours. A properly trained
cop would likely let you off with a stern warning if you acted
reasonably but I am aware of plenty of cases, some perhaps involving
racial profiling which also still exists, that people get into FAR
more trouble than it is worth to just snap a couple of pictures after
a dealer closes.

One more time, please excuse me for acting judgmental, but has anyone
ever suggested to you that perhaps you have a chip on your shoulder
and invite trouble with the police, and perhaps have been more than a
little lucky in not having a criminal record by now?

Another case punted by another judge.

If you go back far enough in Canadian legal history, these files
will still be on record, I believe, as will a few others.

Of course, everything didn't go my way. I was also busted for
"threatening to kill" the brother of one of the officers. His
word against mine. I could have fought it, but, the charge was
"verbal assault," and the fine was $500, so I pleaded guilty and
went back to work.

In the United States, assault can be as little as simply getting too
close to someone who believes they are being threatened, but
certainly even an allegation of threatening bodily harm or murder is
damn likely to get the attention of the LEOs as well as at least your
being required to go to a local hospital, have your blood drawn for a
toxic substances scan, and be forced to see a psychologist. And, it
would not be out of line in my view for the investigating officer to
ask you to be checked for blood alcohol level.

In the modern world of extreme crime and the now ever present threat
of terrorism, we must live with sometimes severe limitations to our
freedoms and rights, so I would likely have done exactly what you did
as everything might have gone down hill for you even if it was a his
word vs yours thing.

Neither that conviction, nor any residual record of the other
incidents has ever come back to haunt me. But, I have to say
the reputation I gained at the time probably kept me out of more
bar fights than you can shake a stick at...

I don't own a handgun, much less with a CCW license, but there MAY
come a time that I do want to purchase one for personal protection or
sporting use and it is conceivable that I might want to conceal the
weapon when traveling into known seedy areas of town. The easy
charges you have on your record MAY be enought to stop me from
getting a license to purchase a handgun but would almost certainly
prevent me from obtaining a CCW since it is common to restrict all
former crimianals. I don't know the exact severity of your
"convictions", but here, a convicted felon is specifically denied the
right to purchase ANY king of firearm, a stance in the law that has
been upheld many times including just last month by our Supreme
Court.

Other highly likely consequences that MAY affect one's personal life
is if a potential employer spots a criminal record and chooses not to
hire you, a credit bureau or auto insurance company believes that you
are somehow a greater risk, and similar things can and do happen to
otherwise law abiding citizens. So, it is my firm belief that while I
don't like to be hassled, I also don't want to suffer some loss 20 or
more years from what may have been only the foolish act of a youth.

So, yes, you'll have to deal with the ramifications of what you
do, but those ramifications aren't always as severe as people,
including the cops, would want you to believe.

In such incidents, it can boil down to a sophisticated game of
chicken. With the cops over-inflating the repercussions of not
complying with their demands, and the individual placing too
much reliance on his / her supposed rights.

Yes, but the cops are much better able to avoid "blinking" and in
general, they hold all the cards.

And, of course, you are spot on when you say that a mixture of
meek and firm are a good rule of thumb to follow. My point is
that every now and then somebody needs to put his / her neck on
the line to keep the system accountable.

Oh, I agree with your last, but I'm sorry to say, I do NOT agree with
the specific examples you cited. I am happy that you survived
unscathed, but I have a different view. Thankfully, I've neither had
to forcefully assert my rights nor to turn into Marvin Milktoast.
But, one occasion that could easily of gone badly does come to mind:

Decades ago, I was dating a young woman and we looked for a deserted
street at night to neck. Unknown to me, the street I picked was the
entrance to a housing subdivision that was still under construction
and was being protected by rent-a-cops. One came buy, questioned me
and girl, didn't believe us, and called the LEOs. Of course, he had
my license number although he did not ask for ID. So, I decided to
wait the half hour or so for a patrol car to arrive.He DID check my
ID, called in my licence, checked for a stolen car and for priors and
warrents on me, and then let me go. Now, you may think I was abused
but in my opinion at the time, I was in NO position to make a strong
case right then. Suppose, for example, that somebody else had trashed
one of the houses that same night. Who do you supposed would have
been charged?

Since that time, I have studied political science in general,
and have taken specific courses in Constitutional Politics,
studying both your American and our Canadian Constitutions, not
to mention the British unwritten constitutional tradition. I am
by no means an expert in the field, but I know enough to agree
with you that people tend to think they have more rights than
they can in fact lay claim to.

I am a similar student of Constitutional law, but as I said earlier,
in NO way does that give me the tools I need to investigate the
literally hundreds of thousands of court rulings and precedents in
our rich case law history, nor does a brief class give me the legal
skills to even understand what I was reading if I could find it.

Here's the deal: contrary to what most people think, lawyers are NOT
interested in justice or right and wrong, they are interested only in
earning a fee. Since laws are written by lawyers for other lawyers,
it should not be a surprise that most/all laws are incomprehensible
to laymen. Worse, lawyers deal in nuance and in complicating issues
that favor their clients, and NEVER in simplifying things. So, one
more time, I applaud your gumption in standing up for your rights,
but personally, I wouldn't presume to know even a fraction of what I
should in order to do this reliably.

For me, the bottom line in this case is that the journalist was
doing his job, and the cops got carried away, probably because
of a couple of high profile videos that proved a couple of
officers weren't being entirely truthful under oath.

Can't comment, didn't read the specifics, but again in the US, the
press simply does NOT have unfettered access to whatever they please
nor do they have the right to withold sources of stories. Far too
many state and federal appellate court decisions say that an
Amendment that says only "Congress shall make no law respecting ...
freedom of the press" no more allows journalists to flaunt the law
and the rights of others any more than the "free speech" provision
allows one to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

In this case, though, the reporter got there late, took a few
pics of a truck with its window shot out and the perp lying on
the ground, bleeding, and they didn't want anyone coming back to
question their takedown. From the sound of things, they
needen't have worried (although, I wasn't there, maybe they
did...) They should be professional enough to let other
professionals do their work.

I'm not sure if I've addressed all of your concerns with this
rather lengthy response, but I hope I have. If not, perhaps we
can break it up into smaller chunks for further elaboration...

I appreciate the time you've spent on this, Dudley. It isn't so much
whether you did or didn't address my concerns, but perhaps it is more
that you and I have rather different views of this, complicated by
what are likely to be considerable differences in the law in our
respective countries.

Whatever, I wish you a nice afternoon and a pleasant week and thanks
for your insights and observations.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
bumper sticker

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:34:34 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:



With a cop it might be "Oh, more evidence. I'll have that too, thank you."

If it's really an issue of evidence (as opposed to using "evidence" as an
excuse to bully you) then the police letting you leave the scene with the
camera breaks the chain of custody, which may mean that a criminal walks.
"No, I'm not going to give you the camera unless you take it from me by
force, but I'll be happy to let one of your forensics people copy the images
either here or down at the station" resolves that issue at the cost of your
time. Now, if there is something else on the card that might incriminate
you or that might lead police to a source to whom you have promised
anyonymity or some such then I can see where you might resist this. But
witholding real evidence in a criminal case when you are not being harmed in
any way other than petty annoyance by providing it, even if it's lawful for
you to withhold it, seems to me to be putting your rights before the good of
the community.


I have to say that I am distressed at how little value some people are
placing on our liberties and rights.

Nothing in the constitution is designed to guarantee that someone is
properly punished by the justice system. Instead, it is designed to
tie the hands of the government enough so that it cannot become a
tyranny. Unfortunately too many "living document" proponents are
either ignorant of, or just don't care about the constitution.

Yes, one implication of this is that criminals will sometimes go free,
but the alternative is that the government basically has all the
rights and the people really have one - something which is completely
contrary to why this country was formed the way it was.

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:14:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:



Until civilians, including reporters understand that officers dealing
directly with an incident have a hyper-focus on the incident and are
doing a job isolating, containing and controlling the incident.
Elements which appear to them to hinder that process have to be dealt
with. Arguing with a reporter or other civilian is hindering or
obstructing the officer from doing what he/she needs to do in the
moment.
In this case it was not taking photographs in a station, it was a
shooting incident which has serious implications.


On the contrary, until law enforcement - and government in general -
understand that they cannot infringe on the rights of the people
without cause and due process.

While I am actually very sensitive to the nature of the job of law
enforcement officers and the difficult conditions under which they
often work, it is important that we as citizens also do not let them
believe that they have carte blanche to perform their duties.
Protecting ourselves from the unwarranted action of government is one
of our responsibilities in this constitutional republic.

Considering that there were other options besides confiscating the
equipment and/or arresting the photographer, imho they should be made
aware of these other options - perhaps painfully aware if need be.

On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:33:19 -0400, jls wrote:


I have to say that I am distressed at how little value some people are
placing on our liberties and rights.

I am also distressed at how little value some people place on common
decency and the feelings of others.

Much is discussed in this forum on the rights of the photographer, but
little is discussed on the wrongs of the photographer. Not the
professional photographer who is employed to capture news, but the
citizen who carries a camera and feels he has the right to capture
anything he sees.

Drive by a bad wreck sometime and you will see some bozo with a camera
photographing the scene and the people in it. If I'm a victim in an
accident, I don't want that guy photographing me lying there in a pool
of blood. Whether I'm in a public or private place, I don't feel he
has a right to gawk and photograph. If he isn't there to help, he
should get the hell away.

Same with a slip-and-fall accident. It's one thing to take a
photograph in order to provide the victim with some documentation of
the conditions, but quite different if the photograph goes up on
Flickr as a "funny" image of someone ass-over-teakettle in an awkward
and embarassing position.

I like "street photography" and I do it. But, if anyone sees me
taking a picture of them and objects to me doing so, I'll delete the
image in a heartbeat. I don't feel I have a right not to.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2009-04-08 09:40:50 -0700, jls said:

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:14:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:



Until civilians, including reporters understand that officers dealing
directly with an incident have a hyper-focus on the incident and are
doing a job isolating, containing and controlling the incident.
Elements which appear to them to hinder that process have to be dealt
with. Arguing with a reporter or other civilian is hindering or
obstructing the officer from doing what he/she needs to do in the
moment.
In this case it was not taking photographs in a station, it was a
shooting incident which has serious implications.


On the contrary, until law enforcement - and government in general -
understand that they cannot infringe on the rights of the people
without cause and due process.

While I am actually very sensitive to the nature of the job of law
enforcement officers and the difficult conditions under which they
often work, it is important that we as citizens also do not let them
believe that they have carte blanche to perform their duties.
Protecting ourselves from the unwarranted action of government is one
of our responsibilities in this constitutional republic.

Considering that there were other options besides confiscating the
equipment and/or arresting the photographer, imho they should be made
aware of these other options - perhaps painfully aware if need be.

The thing to remember is, each circumstance and the interaction between
those involved is different.

For the most part during my 25 year career in Law enforcement I have
found the press/media and the public to be cooperative during an
incident. I have never had, cause to confront on scene witnesses
aggressively. If they are encroaching on a crime scene, a simple
request to move back normally sufficed and we could deal with whatever
we had to. Photographers could carry on shooting and by-standers could
carry on eye-balling.
We were able to develop a good working relationship with the press.

Unfortunately there are those in both camps who push the rational
envelope and who use arguments ranging from preserving evidence to
preserving First Amendment Rights to justify their actions.

Officer involved shootings are a sensitive issue for the officers on
scene and they may not be thinking as they should if they are being
protective of a brother officer(s). An on scene supervisor would
normally get the involved officer(s) away from the scene and advise
them of their rights under POBAR (Peace Officer's Bill of Rights, the
cop's Miranda) as there will be a shooting review and there is always
the possibility of adverse action being taken against the officer(s) up
to the level of criminal prosecution. This is what happened with the
recent BART shooting in Oakland. That officer is currently facing
murder charges.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009040810312494091-savageduck@savagenet...
On 2009-04-08 09:40:50 -0700, jls said:

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:14:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:



Until civilians, including reporters understand that officers dealing
directly with an incident have a hyper-focus on the incident and are
doing a job isolating, containing and controlling the incident.
Elements which appear to them to hinder that process have to be dealt
with. Arguing with a reporter or other civilian is hindering or
obstructing the officer from doing what he/she needs to do in the
moment.
In this case it was not taking photographs in a station, it was a
shooting incident which has serious implications.


On the contrary, until law enforcement - and government in general -
understand that they cannot infringe on the rights of the people
without cause and due process.

While I am actually very sensitive to the nature of the job of law
enforcement officers and the difficult conditions under which they
often work, it is important that we as citizens also do not let them
believe that they have carte blanche to perform their duties.
Protecting ourselves from the unwarranted action of government is one
of our responsibilities in this constitutional republic.

Considering that there were other options besides confiscating the
equipment and/or arresting the photographer, imho they should be made
aware of these other options - perhaps painfully aware if need be.

The thing to remember is, each circumstance and the interaction between
those involved is different.

For the most part during my 25 year career in Law enforcement I have found
the press/media and the public to be cooperative during an incident. I
have never had, cause to confront on scene witnesses aggressively. If they
are encroaching on a crime scene, a simple request to move back normally
sufficed and we could deal with whatever we had to. Photographers could
carry on shooting and by-standers could carry on eye-balling.
We were able to develop a good working relationship with the press.

Unfortunately there are those in both camps who push the rational envelope
and who use arguments ranging from preserving evidence to preserving First
Amendment Rights to justify their actions.

Officer involved shootings are a sensitive issue for the officers on scene
and they may not be thinking as they should if they are being protective
of a brother officer(s). An on scene supervisor would normally get the
involved officer(s) away from the scene and advise them of their rights
under POBAR (Peace Officer's Bill of Rights, the cop's Miranda) as there
will be a shooting review and there is always the possibility of adverse
action being taken against the officer(s) up to the level of criminal
prosecution. This is what happened with the recent BART shooting in
Oakland. That officer is currently facing murder charges.

--
Regards,
Savageduck


The reason why I posted this one in the first place is that the reported
facts seem at odds with the outcome...

If the photog got there after the fact, identified himself as a working
media person, was no closer than other non-officers, had 16 years of
experience and wasn't getting in the way, it seems odd that the cops would
want to take his camera. It's extra work at an already busy crime scene.

Even if the officers were inexperienced or over zealous, it seems strange
they would want to take a camera that had little chance of either containing
evidence or incriminating shots.

Perhaps I'm a cynic, but I kind of wonder if the photog didn't wander right
through the middle of the crime scene before getting to the point where he
was confronted, on the periphery.

Perhaps we'll never know...

Take Care,
Dudley

"jls" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:34:34 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:



With a cop it might be "Oh, more evidence. I'll have that too, thank
you."

If it's really an issue of evidence (as opposed to using "evidence" as an
excuse to bully you) then the police letting you leave the scene with the
camera breaks the chain of custody, which may mean that a criminal walks.
"No, I'm not going to give you the camera unless you take it from me by
force, but I'll be happy to let one of your forensics people copy the
images
either here or down at the station" resolves that issue at the cost of
your
time. Now, if there is something else on the card that might incriminate
you or that might lead police to a source to whom you have promised
anyonymity or some such then I can see where you might resist this. But
witholding real evidence in a criminal case when you are not being harmed
in
any way other than petty annoyance by providing it, even if it's lawful
for
you to withhold it, seems to me to be putting your rights before the good
of
the community.


I have to say that I am distressed at how little value some people are
placing on our liberties and rights.

Nothing in the constitution is designed to guarantee that someone is
properly punished by the justice system. Instead, it is designed to
tie the hands of the government enough so that it cannot become a
tyranny. Unfortunately too many "living document" proponents are
either ignorant of, or just don't care about the constitution.

Yes, one implication of this is that criminals will sometimes go free,
but the alternative is that the government basically has all the
rights and the people really have one - something which is completely
contrary to why this country was formed the way it was.

That's it in a nutshell; constitutions are drafted to codify governmental
authority.

Criminal codes and other governmental legislation tend to more explicitly
spell out what Mr. Average Joe can or cannot do.

Problems occur when people interpret and apply each with respect to the
other...

Take Care,
Dudley

"TonyCooper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 05:37:17 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

The police were wrong in what they did, but let's not re-write the
story to make it a stronger case.

Sorry, Tony, I know a few photographers who are also reporters / writers,
so
I tend to treat the two as interchangeable...

Photo-journalists usually work for magazines, wire services, or are
independent and are paid by submission. Some small newspapers expect
their reporters to also be photographers, but this guy was identified
as a photographer for a newspaper.

Before I went into the medical equipment field, I worked for the
Indianapolis Times (now defunct) and the Chicago Tribune. The
newspaper photographers I met (mostly in the Billy Goat Tavern in
Chicago; a hang-out for the newspaper people) confined their writing
to notes on the photgraphs they took.

They all had a tale about some news event where they were the only
newspaper person on the scene, but they phoned in their report of the
facts to the desk, and the desk wrote the story.

Of course, most newspaper reporting was done that way in those days.
Reporters reported. They didn't write the story. They phoned in the
stories or turned in their notes. The copy desk or a sub-editor wrote
the actual verbiage. The Hollywood image of the reporter slaving
away at a typewriter was just that: the Hollywood image. The
reporter might have typed out his notes or the outline of the story,
but the actual item that appeared in print was done by someone else or
heavily edited by someone else.

Newspaper reporters were not necessarily good writers. They were good
in the field, good in securing information, and good at developing
contacts. The best reporters were often good at getting the 5 Ws
(who, what, why, when, where), but not at the 6th: writing. There
were "investigative reporters" who did the whole thing, but most
newspaper copy was written by the copy editors.

(Exceptions to everything, of course. Some newspaper reporters were
excellent writers. The newspapers, though, didn't require this skill
if the other skills were present. The ability to develop contacts and
coax out statements out-weighed the ability to spell and write
grammatical copy.)

Things have changed, though. Newspapers are cutting budgets and
positions. Copy editors are an endangered species.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

For me, I've always been connected to newspapers via the freelance route.
Writing is the basic skill, and many, if not most, of the freelance writers
I know do their own photography -- especially since auto-everything cameras
have become the norm.

Take Care,
Dudley

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009040806000425485-savageduck@savagenet...
On 2009-04-08 00:51:39 -0700, Caesar Romano said:

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:56:56 -0700, Savageduck
wrote Re Another Camera Seized:

On 2009-04-07 16:58:19 -0700, Caesar Romano said:

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:14:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote Re Another Camera Seized:

I can't speak for Canada, but I would imagine the RCMP would maintain
a
symilar system and if booked the photographer would have that
encounter
as part of his permanant record.

Yes, all police states maintain a similar system.

...and just whereabouts in Alabama is it you live?

Extreme North-West part of the state.

OK. ...and I am on the Central Coast of California. My point is, neither
the US nor Canada are good examples of totalitarian police states.

I have my personal differences on how some things are implemented and
executed by various departments and agencies. ( espescially Homeland
Security)

Generally in states such as The USA and Canada attitude towards Law
enforcement is based on age, lifestyle, political bias and prior contact
(positive or negative).

So just why is it you believe Canada and the USA are police states?
--
Regards,
Savageduck


Perhaps a quick refresher on the practices of Stalinist Russia, Hitler's
Germany or Saddam's Iraq might clarify our good fortune a bit ...

Take Care,
Dudley