RE: [Leica]different Journalism traditions etc

[Tim Atherton <tim@KairosPhoto.com>]

> What I find so interesting about this is that, in my view, you are
> trying to have things both ways - you want to be viewed as a
> "photojournalist" and "documentarian," and yet you use your considerable
> photographic skills to espouse a political cause. The question isn't
> whether you are on the side of 'right' in terms of backing that cause;
> the question is what happens to people's view of all your work when they
> know that you when you feel it's justified to ignore general standards
> of photojournalism, you will.

This is an interesting point. There is a fairly strong tradition in Europe
of photojournalist and journalists who are also "cause" photographers (or
journalists" producing POV work - what you might call activist
photojournalism/journalism). But as such they are still considered to be
within the fold of photojournalism/reportage. Sometimes they work for a
publication with a known bias - a left-wing newspaper or magazine (of which
there are many in Europe - you buy the Guardian, you know you are buying a
left wing paper -  same in most Euro countries). Sometime they are
independents. There are also many documentary film makers of this kind.
Their affiliation is worn openly on their sleeve, but their work is still
published as journalism by newspapers, the BBC, ITV, Le Figaro or whatever.
An example might be John Pilger or even Robert Fisk - though there are many
others.

Yet this is basically anathema in N America, especially the US (although
there is a history of it here in the 1920's 30' and 40's). I have seen
photojournalists in N America completely unable to grasp this difference. A
concrete example was the UK freelance photojournalist who specialized in
environmental issues. He was assigned by Greenpeace to cover a demo related
to a US Military Base and charged as a protestor and not allowed any rights
or regard as a journalist. Photojournalists across here saw him as getting
his just deserts - he was a PR/Propaganda flak for Green peace and if he was
arrested in the protest it was his fault. Photojournalists in Europe and the
UK were outraged at both his treatment by the authorities and also the way
he was being regarded by US photojournalists. To them he was a
photojournalist, free to produce his own view of what happened at the
protest, but hired by Greenpeace.  As I recall the two sides of the Atlantic
never did come to understand each other on this.

Interestingly, I note that Ted seems to regard his extensive projects for
the Canadian Government as unbiased photojournalism/documentary - probably
because of what he feels was the objective, professional approach he brought
to it. Plenty would see it as nothing but PR/Propaganda (which I don't
happen to believe Ted generally produced...). It's a similar if slightly
different distinction.

tim

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html