Climate Camp from a photographer perspective.
Luca | 18.08.2007 11:31 | Climate Camp 2007 | London
You have a camera! You cannot go there, you cannot photograph here, you need to be accompanied...ecc...
hi, I'm a professional photographer and
I went to the climate camp a couple of times. It was nice to see the good intentions,
the recycling, the sustainability, overall there was a good vibe and energy,
but unfortunately the camp made me feel i was a terrorist or something like that,
just because i had a camera on my neck.
This is just crap,
the demonstrators praise and embrace freedom but they are clearly not free,
as the only people truly free are the ones that have no problems to be photographed,
(Europeans are clearly not free at all).
I understand very well that there are bad photographers that are just like paparazzi, but as there are bad muslims not all the muslims are terrorists.
In the end of the day the demonstrators are just like the people they are fighting against to,
using the same attachement to secrecy and all the crap that it's clearly against freedom of speech.
Unfortunately, there is still a long way to go.
Luca
I went to the climate camp a couple of times. It was nice to see the good intentions,
the recycling, the sustainability, overall there was a good vibe and energy,
but unfortunately the camp made me feel i was a terrorist or something like that,
just because i had a camera on my neck.
This is just crap,
the demonstrators praise and embrace freedom but they are clearly not free,
as the only people truly free are the ones that have no problems to be photographed,
(Europeans are clearly not free at all).
I understand very well that there are bad photographers that are just like paparazzi, but as there are bad muslims not all the muslims are terrorists.
In the end of the day the demonstrators are just like the people they are fighting against to,
using the same attachement to secrecy and all the crap that it's clearly against freedom of speech.
Unfortunately, there is still a long way to go.
Luca
Luca
e-mail:
lucakuba@hotmail.com
Comments
Hide 30 hidden comments or hide all comments
silly
18.08.2007 11:47
Time and time again you get these self-important freelancers who think we are here for them. Bollocks! If the camp agrees a policy via consensus - THIS IS FREEDOM. I think your just being selfish.
fanculo
Who's claiming Freedom
18.08.2007 12:19
As a side issue how many times has Luca attempted to have photographs published from the regular Critical Mass non-demonstrations? Miles of photo opps with many participants merrily waving.
visiting camper
e-mail:
ari.henry@gmail.com
comment to the 'fanculo' guy
18.08.2007 13:31
Sorry this is it. You might not want to believe it, but this is the way it is.
Climate camp without the media = worthless.
You need the media to spread the message, to make people think, to change people's perspective and beliefs, to change the public opinion that this camp is not another protest made up by the usual anarchists and unemployed.
So first pay some respect for the freelancers that are getting a positive image out of it.
Second i am going to visit people 's home and portray the way we live in this age, what's wrong about this?
i've been photographed within my domestic perimeters by other fellow photographers and i don't see any problem in doing this,
What's all this fear about being photographed?
Fear don't equal freedom, sorry it doesn't.
Third we should stop treating photographers just like privacy invaders,
we report the current times visually, ....imagine how much photographs we didn't have now that documents our pasts if everybody behave so selfishly about their 'privacy'.
Luca
luca
e-mail:
lucakuba@hotmail.com
response
18.08.2007 14:23
But the majority of campers plain and simply dont want their faces published and dont trust members of the corporate media to respect this. Like many others, ive been told by very nice corporate photographers that regardless of my wishes, photographs taken of me would be published because they were very good. Why wouldn't police gather photographs of people from newspapers when they are already trying to capture them with their FIT squads? Freedom entails respect and responsibility, this is not what the corporate media generally champions.
pip
actvists need privacy
18.08.2007 14:48
John Ackers
comment to the comments
18.08.2007 15:33
i only think it could have been managed in a different way,
maybe by previously filtering the photographers, getting in touch with them, discuss the various issues,
i don't agree that all photographers can be placed in a unique vacuum, we all have different backgrounds/ purposes/ styles and aims.
Judging an enviromental photographer just like a corporate media photographer doesn't work,
it doesn't work for you and it doesn't work for us,
allow anyone with a camera only 1 hour access (with personal guard), it's not a nice feeling,
everyone get the same shots, (well in matter of subject/situations i mean),
another thing that strucked me was that everyone was so paranoid about the media, but nobody were actually aware of how the media was portraying the protest, well at least the 5 guards that escorted me weren't.
From what i read and see in these days the media is not giving a bad picture of the camp (except for the evening standard) ,... i repeat this is from what i read and see , i cant read all the paper and see all the tv news...
anyway, good luck with tomorrow action,
luca
a
(regarding the other comment, i'm sorry i firmly believe that the only free people are the ones that
are undisturbed when photographed,
if we get attach too much to our privacy we won't have any visual history of our current times).
luca
e-mail:
lucakuba@hotmail.com
as a fellow photographer
18.08.2007 16:22
the decision to limit the media time within the camp to 1 or 2 hours per day was publicised a week before the camp opened and perhaps this time could've been used to negotiate access for any freelancers.
as a camper though i really didnt want to be in any more photos (considering that the FIT ones werent really negotiable).
peoples republic of southwark
Welcome to the Karl Rove Affinity Group!
18.08.2007 17:11
Personally, I think being frogmarched off the campsite by 'Tranquility Team' goons, is a damn sight more imposive than being snapped.
You wanna talk panopticon? You're watched all the time. There's more CCTV in the UK than anywhere else on Earth. The Heathrow area will be saturated with 'em.
Then you get snapped and database'd up, by the FIT. Then videoed by the chopper above which can read the logo on your trainers from 1000 feet away.
But you only swoon like a Victorian duchess when some press photographer takes a picture of you? Stop reading postmodern nonsense and get real - in the grand scheme of things, being snapped by the press is on the level of getting a parking ticket. Get over it.
Why?
Because it doesn't matter.
That's right - being done over by the FIT? Being this weeks 'Face of Hate' in the Daily Tits?
It means absolutely sod all...if you're secure in your principles of course. If not, you end up squirming trying to do your thing, but being too scared or ashamed to front it up.
Anyone who is willing to protest, but only if their ideological opponents 'play fair', is living in a self-indulgent dream world. As someone else on this site quipped, you're asserting the right to protest - but in private!
Ridiculous. It's Alice in Wonderland activism.
AS for the media blowing the gaff on affinity groups planning a bit o' naughtyness? Any bunch of people conjuring up an action would have to be complete idiots to involve anyone not known and trusted - but we're not talking about peoples right to know your innermost thoughts, we're talking about the right to freely wander about an area of open land and interact with people.
Those people can of course tell journos and photographers to bog off, but at present that isn't happening - because the Camp WON'T LET THEM IN.
Except for the Camp's 'George Orwell Daily Hate Hour' tour.
There's everything to be gained by fronting up your principles in public to ANYONE who wants to know, and nothing to lose. You may convince some people, and the media intent on stitching you up will do that anyway - so there's no point in stopping them, if you're stopping potential allies as well. It's strategically stupid and ethically out of order.
Sorry 'fanculo', but you're the one who is being silly and ignorant. If someone comes to my home trying to take pictures, I can stop them (if I want to) because my home is protected by law and by existing regulations on the press regarding intrusion into private space.
But the camp is not your home. It's not private. The campers publicly seized the land, and now claim to decide what others can do on it.
You're using the same arguments that the US is using to occupy Iraq: We seized the land, so we get to say what happens on it...and it's in the name of 'freedom'!
You have no right, in legal terms or in any other term, to compel people to do your bidding at the camp. The only right you appear to be asserting is the right of 'conquest and occupation'...
...'Mission Accomplished' mate!
Neither can you openly vote or decide by consensus, an outcome which fundamentally contradicts the means used to bring it about - you decided to remove other people's rights without their consent, involvement, a right of reply, or a voice in the decision.
You can't 'openly' vote for censorship. You can't 'freely' decide to repress others.
It would be laughable, if it wasn't so depressing. I'm absolutely staggered that people on this site can't see the Climate Camps attitudes to the media, reflects exactly the very attitudes of the corporate and political entities you claim to oppose:
The means justify the ends.
Get your spin out before your enemies do.
Gag opponents even if it means gagging allies.
The Climate Camp media regulations granted the press access for one hour a day, accompanied by a 'minder', and at one point, required media workers to wear an armband, or to be accompanied by someone waving a flag!
'Another World is Possible'? No thanks. Not if it sounds like North Korea, Turkmenistan, or Burma.
Freedom is supposed to apply to everyone, not just you and your mates. Maybe you should look again at your principles, if you're too scared to have them subjected to scrutiny - and yes, attack - from outside your self-selecting cabal.
Sion Touhig
go back to Italy
18.08.2007 17:38
here is comment to what you wrote....
>
as there are bad EUROPEAN not all the EUROPEANS are RACISTS !!!
fuck off
response to Luca
18.08.2007 22:11
"First you fail to understand that without the media the climate camp is COMPLETELY meaningless.
Sorry this is it. You might not want to believe it, but this is the way it is.
Climate camp without the media = worthless."
This is true for you because you see yourself as the vital element of our worthless action. Without people like you we are worthless. No! I say you, mediators, add NOTHING to real action. You represent mediated imagery and with that you don't present reality but a distortion.
"You need the media to spread the message, to make people think, to change people's perspective and beliefs, to change the public opinion that this camp is not another protest made up by the usual anarchists and unemployed. So first pay some respect for the freelancers that are getting a positive image out of it."
Why should I/we pay respect when it is the corporate-owned media monopolies which pay you? The media is a hindrance not a help, it distorts reality and convinces niave people like yourself that you are doing good work by "spreading the word".
"What's all this fear about being photographed?
Fear don't equal freedom, sorry it doesn't."
neither does someone intruding into someones private space so they can take photos to sell to corporate media.
"Third we should stop treating photographers just like privacy invaders,
we report the current times visually, ....imagine how much photographs we didn't have now that documents our pasts if everybody behave so selfishly about their 'privacy'."
We're not against photographers but against the arrogance of some freelancers like yourself, who look around (by your own admission) at our "worthless" actions and seek to save us by taking pictures.
I'm glad you were taken out of the camp - I here there are a lot of worthless weddings and funerals that need salvation.
fanculo
Great Idea! Let's all Hide in a Box and Die!
19.08.2007 00:05
You might not like this, but it's the tens of thousands of poor deluded bastards who read the Daily Mail who are the people you should be trying to convert.
But fair enough - let's use your plan. Turn your back on them, and maybe in about fifty years of protesting in your own little smug private bubble, your message will somehow get through to Joe Public, like...by telepathy or something.
Trouble is, by then we'll all be ten feet deep in water, the ozone layer will be totally shagged and about 100 million people will have died.
Still, I wouldn't want to let those deaths get in the way of your cosy prejudices.
And I'm sure you were very glad Luca was taken off your hallowed ground - after all, it never takes much provocation to bring out the closet cop in people like you.
Sion Touhig
the revolution will not be televised
19.08.2007 08:09
You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,
Skip out for beer during commercials,
Because the revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox
In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon
blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John
Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat
hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.
The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by the
Schaefer Award Theatre and will not star Natalie
Woods and Steve McQueen or Bullwinkle and Julia.
The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal.
The revolution will not get rid of the nubs.
The revolution will not make you look five pounds
thinner, because the revolution will not be televised, Brother.
There will be no pictures of you and Willie May
pushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead run,
or trying to slide that color television into a stolen ambulance.
NBC will not be able predict the winner at 8:32
or report from 29 districts.
The revolution will not be televised.
There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of Whitney Young being
run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.
There will be no slow motion or still life of Roy
Wilkens strolling through Watts in a Red, Black and
Green liberation jumpsuit that he had been saving
For just the proper occasion.
Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Hooterville
Junction will no longer be so damned relevant, and
women will not care if Dick finally gets down with
Jane on Search for Tomorrow because Black people
will be in the street looking for a brighter day.
The revolution will not be televised.
There will be no highlights on the eleven o'clock
news and no pictures of hairy armed women
liberationists and Jackie Onassis blowing her nose.
The theme song will not be written by Jim Webb,
Francis Scott Key, nor sung by Glen Campbell, Tom
Jones, Johnny Cash, Englebert Humperdink, or the Rare Earth.
The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be right back after a message
bbout a white tornado, white lightning, or white people.
You will not have to worry about a dove in your
bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl.
The revolution will not go better with Coke.
The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath.
The revolution will put you in the driver's seat.
The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised,
will not be televised, will not be televised.
The revolution will be no re-run brothers;
The revolution will be live.
peoples republic of southwark
comment to the 'fanculo' and 'fuck off'
19.08.2007 08:20
just explane everything about you.
second to the 'fanculo' guy if you think that on tuesday morning the BAA will meet up and will say 'oh look at these 500 people or so, how nice they have been to protest, they are a nice bunch of people, let's stop the plan for the 3rd runaway , why should we carry on making loads of money...naa let's listen to them'
YOU ARE A DELUDED.
pack up your tent and go home you are just wasting your time,
what you need to do is change public opinion, make people flying less,
and how do you do? through some websites??
you do it through the national press, and which are the most read paper? daily mail and the sun.
these readers are the ones that have to look at you and say 'hey these guys have a point'
another thing what's all this paranoia about being photographed at the camp,
YOU ARE JUST BLOODY CAMPING ! you are not smashing McDonalds windows!
i simply don't get it!
then: RECLAIM privacy on a land that is not yours, it's just plain silly!
if i came and stayed there all day with the camera, what would you have done?
called the police??
another thing: who told you i work for corporate?
and that i'm italian?
how did you get to these conclusions?
you are applying the same degree of judgement of your opponents.
judgement that come from personal issues, personal interest and ignorance,
sorry but you are (ignorant) because i don't work for the corporate media and i'm not from italy (close but not).
Luca
e-mail:
lucakuba@hotmail.com
activism in a cosy vacuum
19.08.2007 08:45
We don't really mind being patronised and insulted by inexperienced and prejudiced smug protesters. We understand and respect the reasons behind being mistrusted. We do mind being prevented from working for social change in ways that said smugsters have not spent two consecutive minutes thinking about.
My own reaction is to stay away from today's & tomorrow's actions and to use the time to photograph other things. There will be opportunities for me to place CC images over the coming years in newspapers, magazines (especially teen and women's mags), TV programmes, school text books, etc. In every case I will supply something else as I have none.
In ten years time when 90% of today's self congratulatory 'activists' have got a mortgage and a nice steady job in the consumer society these photographers will still be going out in the rain with little hope of even covering their costs to record genuine, hope based efforts for social change.
David Hoffman
David Hoffman
e-mail:
david@hoffmanphotos.com
Homepage:
http://www.hoffmanphotos.com
Prove it, Luca.
19.08.2007 11:14
I've got a tenner here that says you can't. And another tenner that says you never will. As much as you might like to use the mainstream media to win us support, you cannot because the owners of said mainstream media will not allow you. I suspect you are terrifically naive.
freeluncher
e-mail:
johnsfreelunch@hotmail.co.uk
Homepage:
http://talkingliberties.wordpress.com/
crusty campers who also have breasts!
19.08.2007 11:53
peoples republic of southwark
Gil Scott-Heron
19.08.2007 12:36
Jenny of Oxford
Jenny Stanton
e-mail:
(not giving due to scary warning - hope my name is private too?)
thanks jenny
19.08.2007 13:15
peoples republic of southwark
Every tenner helps
19.08.2007 13:46
"May I ask a question of Luca and David Hoffman? Could you please provide an example of your, or anyone elses work, which is sympathetic to the aims of the Climate Camp, or any other camp or action, which has been reported in the Sun or the Daily Mail in such a way as to make the readers of said organs sympathetic to the aims and causes of such actions or camp?
I've got a tenner here that says you can't. And another tenner that says you never will. As much as you might like to use the mainstream media to win us support, you cannot because the owners of said mainstream media will not allow you. I suspect you are terrifically naive."
I don't want your tenners but the Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture or the Rory Peck Trust could use them, Not that I expect you'll actually send them.
And it's not about winnning you support, it's about raising the issues, showing how people are tackling them, giving cause for thought and discussion so that people can come to their own informed conclusions. It's also about amplifying the effect of the people at the camp and their actions by making them more widely visible.
And, also important, the presence of experienced, trained, independent photographers has a protective effect for the protesters when testerical cops storm in bashing people. It improves cop behaviour and it provides useful evidence to support those who get bashed and, not infrequently, arrested without cause.
I've pulled 20 examples (all I'm allowed to upload here) quickly and largely at random from my library. They've all been published in the mainstream press, mostly many times. Some have been in the Sun or Mail although most of the work I sell to those papers is on policing protest and on racism. They've also been used in other national newspapers (all of them) as well as in the foreign press, many mags, books, TV progs, pamphlets, talks, fund raising leaflets, campaigns, posters... They are a mix of camps, protests and actions. Taken by me and by various colleagues whose work I am proud to distribute. The arrest shot is a self portrait from a Greenpeace action.
David Hoffman
David Hoffman
e-mail:
david@hoffmanphotos.com
Homepage:
http://www.hoffmanphotos.com
EXCLUSIVE: Tabloid Caught in Proper Journalism Shocker!!
19.08.2007 15:29
Dunno...why don't you ask one of the Climate Camp media organisers? He's an advertising photographer who shoots campaigns for HSBC Bank and Volkswagen, so I'm sure he could conjure up some supermodels to drape over a wigwam.
You could call it "Hypocrisy Chic".
Ironically, 'freeluncher', the reason why the incident on your 'blog (the cop incursion into the Climate Camp) was:
"not widely reported (again!) by the mainstream media"
is because the media who could have reported it, had already been told to piss off, by the Camp Media Team much earlier in the day - all journos and photographers are barred from the Camp, apart from one North Korean-style media tour every morning.
Except of course your mates, and Volkswagen snappers aren't banned...they get the run of the place.
Besides, the event WAS reported by the MSM. The Press Association had that story on their wire at 7.44pm that evening.
But they could only report from the perimeter. Your lot wouldn't let 'em in.
If that incident had turned into another Battle of the Beanfield and the cops had given everyone a damn good pasting, you'd have been stuffed. Joe Public wouldn't have given a toss, because they'd have never seen it...unless they came across it amidst 200 million videos on Goo-Tube.
Hang on...how come I don't get the chance to go for the 'Lunch, Or No Lunch 10 Quid Quiz'?
Yesterday, in that well known anti-capitalist agitprop samizdat tabloid, the Mirror :
"Secret Plans to let Airport Swallow Homes and Land"
The paper exposes BAA and drops 'em completely in the shite.
Current Mirror sales? About 1.6 million a month, which means probably more than 3 million people read it - including lots of people in the urban areas around Heathrow.
People who wouldn't give the Climate Camp the time of day - until they saw the Mirror story.
And here's another one from The Sun - which looks like they simply reprinted a Plane Stupid campaign press release! Oooh, those lazy tabloid hacks! BAA hardly got a word in.
Which proves Plane Stupid definitely ain't stupid when it comes to getting their message out to the widest audience, without control-freak spin tactics and without compromising their stance.
Right, that'll be a tenner. I'll let you off the Mirror, 'cos you didn't mention 'em.
Cough up mate. No free lunches round 'ere.
Sion Touhig
Michty Me!
19.08.2007 16:40
Campers took time off of work to attend, why not the freelancers?
CH
Rupert Goes Camping...
19.08.2007 19:12
As for taking time off work? For a lot of freelancers, this is their work. They won't be going back to the dayjob on Monday.
A lot of people are freelance because it gives them the freedom to turn down work which doesn't agree with their principles - unlike a lot of unwilling wage slaves at the Camp, or people who take a week off from working for Volkswagen or HSBC Bank...
...or Rupert Murdoch. One of the Climate Camp organisers works for Sky News...haven't noticed any of you hardcore revolutionaries making much noise about that.
Sion Touhig
luca's..
19.08.2007 20:48
(by the way good work david),
today i wasn't allowed to take photos inside the camp, but then outside the protesters were asking me to shoot the police pushing and instigating, ...don't you find this a bit hypocritical ? you tell me to sod off inside the camp and then you beg for my shoots when you need it?
for what i've seen again today there is some kind of unexplicable paranoia towards anyone with a decent looking camera on their neck,
sample of the media writing good stuff about the protest have been proved,
so what's all the fuss?
from what i see you r being quiet ignorant about what photographers really do,
there are a lot of photographers that work on social issues like this one , earning not much but carrying on doing something with complete passion and dedication, photographers like paolo pellegrin, james nachtwey, philip jones griffiths, ten hoopen,
carl de keizer, (and i can go on and on) risk continuously their life to bring you compelling images of what is happening around the world, highlighting the effect of agent orange, or the devastation of the wars...
these people put their life in danger to show you what's happening outside your tents!
and yes they make people think, they highlight forgotten issues or contemporary hidden realities,
i understand your scepticism about national press like the sun, but i think
you should start applying another attitude here, as these protests on climate change are not first-of-mays against capitalism, here we are talking about the future of the earth , which is (i think we all agree on this) on stake,
so you should keep aside you political views whatever they are (and personal hates and prejudices), because if you really care about global warming you need to convince also the sun readers and you don't do that by waving anarchism elitism.
as for my photos, unfortunately i'm doing a story on the whole thing and together with the villagers,
(and i've been doing this story on films...so i'm sorry it'd take some time,
but i've got your email (freeluncher ) and i'll send it to you when finished, probably next month),
best regards,
luca
Luca
e-mail:
lucakuba@hotmail.com
Maybe a fiver.
20.08.2007 17:32
I wonder if Sion Touhig saw the headline that accompanied the article in the Sun that was linked in their post. It read "PROTEST IS PLANE STUPID". ie protestors are a bunch of idiots.
I do not believe, no matter how noble or sincere your efforts, that readers of the Sun, or Daily Mail et al are getting enough information from said papers to get anywhere near "informed conclusions". From a cursory glance of the readers comments we can see some of these 'conclusions' -
"Its good to see the police taking a firm hand with this rag-bag bunch of wasters,
like the one in the picture poking the guy on the ground in the eye!"
"These wasters are disrupting the Police in the fighting the growing crime on our
streets, these protesters should be fined for wasting Police resources..."
Now, I applaud your efforts in trying to get the message out,(maybe I'll give a fiver to charity) but forgive me for not sharing your faith in the medium. Decades of mainstream media coverage at events does not seem to have helped raise consciousness in the country of the myriad problems we face, I wonder why that is? Is it because the message is being warped by the medium? I appreciate your hope to change the mindset of the average Sun reader, and good luck, but seriously, I think you are on a hiding to nothing. What did the Editorial say on the day your photo's were published? Was the story sympathetic? The headline derogatory as above? More often than not the answer is in the negative. To deny this would be absurd. Many of your colleagues are actively trying to smear activists for social change, in collusion with the owners of your cherished mainstream media. Is it any wonder we are distrustful?
I noticed Johna Hari of the Independent had no trouble reporting from the Camp.
If you are know and trusted, you should have no problem with access. Just make sure you ask people before taking their picture. Some just dont like having their picture taken, especially when it might end up on the front page of the Sun. Activists have know repurcussions from this in the past, from reactionary bigots in the street, to having their picture being plastered on right-wing hate sites for circulation. Some are just shy. Who are you to deny one's freedom to say NO to a photographer?
David makes a pertinent point when he wrote -
"....these photographers will still be going out in the rain with little hope of
even covering their costs to record genuine, hope based efforts for social change."
Photographers are out "record(ing).. genuine, hope based efforts for social change". What would you be doing if there were not people actually DOING these efforts at social change? What would there be to record?
No offence to you guys, but I was angered by Luca's contention that our actions are "worthless without the media". I could tell you some stories about this media you cherish. I could tell you times when the media has helped to make an action worthless, or less than!
Increasingly activists are their own media, we take our own pictures, we write our own articles, we publish them on blogs and Indymedia.
In short, I do not think the revolution will be accompanied by a headline that says "IT WOZ THE SUN WOT DONE IT".
May the force be with you,
Peace
freeluncher
Homepage:
http://talkingliberties.wordpress.com/
Nah, Its Definitely a Tenner.
20.08.2007 23:08
Cor blimey, where do I start? 'Nothing to hide? Nothing to worry about'...isn't that the same argument used by Home Secretary John Reid to justify ID cards, dragging people in under terror laws and grilling 'em for weeks?
Photographers who ARE known and ARE trusted were banned along with everyone else. The ban was total.
"Some just don't like having their picture taken, especially when it might end up on the front page of the Sun" etc.
Like I said before, if having your mug in the paper or on some Nazi site is enough to make you cack your pants, you might as well stay at home.
"What would you be doing if there were not people actually DOING these efforts at social change? What would there be to record?"
Plenty. Look at Darfur. Not much social change there. Shedloads of people killed, but hardly any pictures, and hardly any news. So it either never happened, or it can't be as bad as they say...right?
"I wonder if Sion Touhig saw the headline that accompanied the article in the Sun that was linked in their post. It read "PROTEST IS PLANE STUPID". ie protestors are a bunch of idiots."
Yeah, tabs love punning headlines, so that was an obvious gift. Thankfully even tabloid readers aren't as bovine as you assume they are, so will have read beyond the headline - the entire story is pretty much word for word, Plane Stupid's argument and view on the matter.
"Decades of mainstream media coverage at events does not seem to have helped raise consciousness in the country of the myriad problems we face"
I never said it did. Neither was I holding you responsible for Camp conduct - I was arguing to others their stance was wrongheaded because it fundamentally contradicted principles of free speech.
I replied to your bet - you bet me a tenner I couldn't find any examples of mainstream tab journalism that supported the Climate Camp cause. I found two examples, so stop shifting in yer seat and cough up.
My original objection was to the Climate Camp not allowing ANY journalists, in, tabloid or not.
"Increasingly activists are their own media, we take our own pictures, we write our own articles, we publish them on blogs and Indymedia."
Yup. So why the hell can't other people? That's the point I'm making, mate. Activists claiming to stand for openness and freedom in pretty much all other aspects are behaving exactly like Nu Labour spin doctors when it comes to having their views and campaigns held up for scrutiny.
And the final irony - I replied 48 hrs ago to the post from 'CH' and that post was removed, I assume by Indymedia moderators. The post was completely inoffensive, except it mentioned that one of the Climate Camp organisers worked for Sky News (I mentioned no names).
The bulk of my reply to CH said one of the points of being freelance is you can turn down work which contradicts your principles, but people gotta earn a crust, so the Sky News journalists workplace wasn't my point.
What WAS the point, was that Climate Campers and their apologists were shrinking away from journalists like they had Ebola - the reason being 'they're all MSM lovin' scum'...while being quite happy to tolerate people working for Rupert Murdoch and Volkswagen in the heart of the Camp...
...who were telling other journos to get lost!
Like I said, that post was removed. Obviously News Corp's influence is wide ranging!
Some MSM journalists are more equal than others eh? Shame George Orwell is dead...I'd have LOVED to tell him that story down the pub.
He was a BBC journalist, so you wouldn't have let him in the Camp either!
Sion Touhig
Excessive Media Restrictions
21.08.2007 09:32
Camp for Climate Action (13.08.07) (c) Marc Vallée, 2007.
Marc Vallée
e-mail:
marc@marcvallee.co.uk
Homepage:
http://www.marcvallee.co.uk/climate_camp_2007_index.html
The 'freedom' to be photographed without consent
21.08.2007 11:10
Its strange that you see yourself as being a victim in this post:
My understanding was that despite being given privileged access to a covertly organised action, you failed, when asked, to identify yourself to people at the action - who therefore had no idea how you had turned up, nor who you were, or whom your masters might be. To then complain that you were obstructed when you piled in for facial shots doesn't, under the circumstances, shock me at all.
"this group of anarchists had just invaded a company called carmel agrexco (a fruit and vegetable importer) near heathrow airport and i’m being told off by one of them because i did not asked before taking a photo!!"
How dare the naughty children tell off the good photographer is how I read that. I hope it isn't what you actually meant.
"and insult to injury the group behind this action have posted a link from indymedia to my images. talk about having your cake and eating it!! i have to say i'm looking forward to this week being over."
I think you'll find that it was an individual who posted that link - there has to be some irony here - you complaining about all photographers being treated as the same, and then going on to treat all of the group as being the same as one individual.
"© marc vallée. all rights reserved. moral rights asserted under copyright designs & patents act 1988. full terms and conditions for digital and traditional use available on request. no part of image(s) to be stored, reproduced, manipulated or transmitted by any means without permission."
Under those terms, I think people have some right to decide if they want their faces to become your property.
"freedom of the press anybody? pubic space! news event taking place! public interest!"
There are always going to be people who refuse to willingly sumit to the media. At the end of the day, the corporate media allowed itself to be manipulated by M!5 briefings, police briefings and sided with the cops who attacked protestors - finding it expedient to desribe attacks by the police as "protestors scuffling with the police" - that was the overall message, no?
photographic model
The 'Freedom' To Get My Tenner...
21.08.2007 13:39
They might have plotted the action in private, but when you've D-locked yourself to a gate on a public road, it ain't private no more, buddy. Thats what 'demonstration' means.
Like any other private citizen, Marc is under no obligation to publicly identify himself to you, or anyone else, especially if they start attempting to stop him doing his thing. Pardon me, but if they hate cops so much, why are they behaving like one?
The point of a demonstration is to bring attention to a principle. Obviously some of that attention is unwelcome, like the Police jumping all over people.
But that's the point. If your principles are secure, you take the bad attention with the good. If you want to control who gets in your face, when you're superglued to a door, I'd suggest doing that in your bedroom.
But that would totally defeat the object.
I ain't gonna deny the mainstream media is infiltrated and compromised by all kinds of forces...MI5, corporate pay, you name it.
Mind you, the Climate Camp was compromised too, by trying to arrange a cosy little deal with the Guardian (they backed off after the National Union of Journalists complained about Camp media restrictions), by having someone who works for Volkswagen as one of the media organisers...and by having another organiser flitting between organising the Camp and working for Sky News.
As for the Camp getting slagged by the MSM...what the hell did you expect after trying to be 'The Big I Am' and coming across like Alistair Campbell with the media restrictions? The MSM are not your greatest fans already...so you managed to piss 'em off even more.
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, mate.
As for the copyright thing - just goes to show how most Indymedia numpties know nothing about how copyright works.
The law exists not to protect 'property', but the result of the creative workers labour.
You wouldn't steal the cash out of a miners wallet, so you don't nick the result of an authors labour, or bandy it about for your own profit.
Notice I said 'profit' - so if any of you could actually be arsed to read the Copyright Act, you'd know Indymedia linking to Marcs site is covered under the 'Fair Use' clause of that law, because it doesn't involve commercial enterprise and is for the purposes of comment and debate.
Marc's copyright entry is simply to inform anyone wanting to steal the image for profit, that they're a thief.
Marc's copyright marking isn't 'ironic' in the circumstances, because the marking isn't an all encompassing 'property' claim.
In copyright terms, his blog post was arguing that his creative labour was being restricted by people who were engaged in action in the public sphere, but attempted to restrict his free movement within that sphere.
Then after trying to stop him, they were hypocritical in then wanting to use his work to bolster their own case.
That's the irony.
I will concede one point - the Flickr pic you linked to had a completely pisspoor caption. The photographer works for Bloomberg News, which is a wire service (like Reuters and Associated Press). The golden rule of wire service copy is you never editorialise. The pic should have been captioned - 'who', 'what', 'when' 'where', and maybe if applicable, 'why'.
So the caption should have specifically stated the copper was striking (or about to strike) a protester.
'Scuffling' is too vague and in the context of the pic, would be editorialising.
As the same caption was used on several of the photographers pics, I'd say it was a symptom of wire service deadline pressure - use a generic caption, chuck it on a bunch of your latest stuff, then get 'em out.
Not great editorial discipline, but hardly evidence of a grand conspiracy.
And at the end of the day, the pic clearly shows two cops giving a guy a good pasting. Nobody's gonna mistake that.
And I'm still waiting for that ten quid.
Sion Touhig
Better Still, Send the Tenner to John Vidal...
21.08.2007 13:59
Sion Touhig
Act like a FIT cameraman - get treated like one?
21.08.2007 14:33
You missed the point. There is a 0% chance that Marc would have been standing there by chance - he got the privileged access that he thinks he deserved (judge us on what we do and not what you think we do) and then wouldn't tell people there who he was. No-one restricted his 'freedom of movement' - but when he wouldn't identify himself, someone decided to stop him getting a facial shot. If he wants to be invited again, he might want to rethink his communications strategy. He asked for feedback - he's getting it.
Heres another journo showing his claim to privileged access isn't based on any kind of shared values whatsoever:
"If there is one thing more aggravating than a British policeman stopping you on suspicion that you are a terrorist when he knows for a fact that you are not, it's a jobsworth protester trying to have you thrown out of a site that he himself has squatted."
John Vidal -
Unlike the cops who pretend journos are terrorists, we stand accused of thinking journos are journos.
Marc thinks people on an action lose their right to choose whether they want their faces in a picture.
John thinks squatters lose their right to choose whether they want their camp to be open to the corporate media and its lackeys.
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, mate.
photographic model
journos all singing from the same song sheet?
21.08.2007 17:43
The media team operated their version of private policing, freedom of the press was once again choked.
A free press in the UK? Not in the alternative society envisaged by the organisers of the Climate Camp."
Carly Fraser
Within a few days seems a bit rich - there was me thinking that the corporate lackeys had been smearing protestors on behalf of their fascist ruling class owners for ever. Another one who thinks rights are contingent on ownership of the land as well.
*sigh*
photographic model
I'm Gonna Start Charging Interest On That Tenner...
21.08.2007 21:41
If you cant see how stifling inquiry into your actions - hostile or not - is fundamentally antithetical to freedom, and by extension (I assume) the basis of your principles, then I'm either obviously not going to convince you, or your principles are simply antithetical to freedom, except under your arbitrary rules.
That's not a principle I'm interested in supporting, so I guess we'll have to agree to differ.
Every real world example of the principles and process you appear to support that I've seen, has been from the mouth of large corporations, repressive political states or spin-doctoring party political drones.
Marc didn't have privileged access - the protest was in broad daylight, in a public street.
To D-lock yourself to a gate, in full public view to anyone walking past, with the specific intent of drawing attention to the activities of the location, then bleating when someone takes pictures, is simply ridiculous.
Next time I can only suggest they wear burkas.
Marc is under no obligation to identify himself to anyone in a public street (unless he gets stopped by cops).
Nobody is.
That's not the point anyway. He could have been working for the Daily Scum, or FIT, or MI5, or CSI Miami and it simply wouldn't matter. It only matters if you let those entities paralyse you. It self evidently doesn't, so any argument using them as a reason to attempt to ban inquiry is just nonsense.
If being watched and hassled by the press, or cops, or Bodie and Doyle is a dealbreaker for you, then go home.
Disliking the activities and attitudes of your political opponents is reasonable. Using that dislike to attempt to control the way they engage you in debate - even if their tactics are unfair - isn't.
It simply means you descend to their level.
And bearing in mind the nature of your opponents, I always assumed that level was below you.
Obviously not.
"John thinks squatters lose their right to choose whether they want their camp to be open to the corporate media and its lackeys."
You have a right to choose. The media has a right to ignore that choice. You cannot use your simple right to choose as a blanket mandate to remove the choices of others to enquire into the Camp. You have no overweening right to enforce any such restriction, in any public space, squatted or not.
Your 'lackey' terms already betray the rationale you've used for the ban.
I'll do a deal with ya - next time we'll do a Cold War-style lackey swap. You hand over your Sky News and Volkswagen lackeys, and we'll hand over John Vidal and David Hoffman.
And as for Indymedia censoring posts and people not coughing up on bets...I'm gonna stand in a field with a big placard saying 'INDYMEDIA CENSORING LACKEYS WELCH ON THEIR BETS' and if any of you bastards even so much as eyeball me without permission...
Sion Touhig
guff
21.08.2007 22:29
Sion and John Vidal are almost hysterical with their hyperbole.
"If there is one thing more aggravating than a British policeman stopping you
on suspicion that you are a terrorist when he knows for a fact that you are not, it's a
jobsworth protester trying to have you thrown out of a site that he himself has squatted."
Pure pish. A policeman stopping you on suspicion of being a terrorist can legitimately fire half a dozen bullets in your head. This, I suspect, is a great fucking deal less 'aggravating' than a protestor asking a jobsworth journo to cease and desist for 5 minutes in certain areas.
You can wait a bit more Sion, I remain unconvinced. The pic you mention of the guy getting a thumb in the eye is not being perceived the way you think it is by Sun readers if their comments pages are anything to go by. For some, that pic is a form of porn for those who hate lefty activists. Show me the responses of outraged Sun/Daily Mail readers, deploring the behaviour of the Police.
You talk of freedom Sion, but it cuts both ways. While you have the freedom to inquire, you also have the freedom to try and evade inquiry.
And what exactly is so heinous about wanting to have a say in how the debate is engaged and formed, when, as you admit, our MANY opponents use unfair tactics? Should we just bend over and let them bugger us too?
freeluncher
Homepage:
http://talkingliberties.wordpress.com/
I've no interest in that tenner
22.08.2007 07:36
Actually, its a private road.... and he was only there because he (out of all the journos there) was tipped off. That seems like privileged access to me.
He didn't have to give his name - and the activists didn't have to play either.
The whole issue of allowing unrestricted access for journos to the site is about trust - many activists who were there long ago gave up on seeing journalism in the corporate media as being benign, and many more have no illusions whatsoever that there is a free press in this country, or that there ever can be such a thing in a capitalist system.
Why should an activist trust any journo who turns up at an action and refuses to identify themselves? Marc would have had all the pictures he wanted, and no reason to write that blog entry if he had behaved in a more open manner.
The journos were there to earn money off the back of the camp. The cops were there to earn overtime by abusing the law that they were supposed to be upholding, off the back of the camp. The activists were there to express their anger at the manner in which corporate greed and authoritarian states are destroying the planet, and if journos believe that they have to act in a journo proscribed way, then the same journos bleating about press freedom have no concept of what freedom means. It does not mean being forced to do things you don't want to do, at the behest of someone who desperately wants that one picture or article which will bring in the bucks.
Nothing said by journos or photographers on this thread has made me think for one second that there was a good case for allowing them unfettered access to the site. Nor is there any evidence that there were articles posted in right wing papers which would have changed the minds of the readership.
This discussion is going around in circles, and quite frankly the journos and photraphers are doing nowt but providing further evidence that the camp's media strategy (which was consensually agreed) was the best way to manage the lackeys of the corporate media.
photographic model
The Freedom to Backtrack on a Bet You've Lost...
22.08.2007 18:32
I'd hate to see you on a rush hour tube. You'd be calling Amnesty International if someone sneaked a read of your Metro.
People here also seem to be continually asserting their 'right' to protest, but in private, despite the obvious glaring contradiction there.
"Actually, its a private road.... "
Private camps, private roads...you're defending private property now? You have no juristiction, or any right, to stop others from simply asking what's going on, or looking, or photographing - which is simply a record of what they looked at - whether they identify themselves or not, or whether they like you or not.
"And what exactly is so heinous about wanting to have a say in how the debate is engaged and formed, when, as you admit, our MANY opponents use unfair tactics?"
Nothing wrong in wanting to have a say. Plenty wrong in forcing others not to have THEIR say, even if its 'unfair', or if you don't agree with it.
That ain't 'freedom', whichever way you spin it.
Freeluncher - the Johan Hari story which you claimed was reported from the camp. I read it. It obviously wasn't reported from the camp at all. It was an opinion piece. The Sun article example I gave has nothing to do with the recent pic of some poor sod getting his eye poked - that was an article you pointed to.
I've never disagreed with the blatantly obvious fact that the mainstream media ain't your greatest fans, or that you have the right to hate 'em.
A reminder - you bet that nobody could find ANY tabloid examples which supported the Climate Camp's (or related orgs) case. I showed you a Sun article which gave Plane Stupid's sole version of events regarding an action in Heathrow a year ago, and another article from the Mirror exposing BAA secret plans.
I never said either paper was alright. That wasn't the wager.
So get your wallet out. I'll even take Paypal.
"Why should an activist trust any journo who turns up at an action and refuses to identify themselves?"
See? There you go again....who said anything about trusting 'em? I'm not talking about them being distrusted, but being banned. The former is not justification for the latter, at least not if you understand what freedom means.
People on this thread obviously cannot seem to grasp that 'freedom' by definition, applies not only to you and your mates, but to everyone, even the 'Sun reader' proles you look down your nose at (showed yer hand a bit there, mate). This has been pretty much universally understood by social movement activists for hundreds of friggin' years, from the Levellers up to the Net Neutrality movement.
Even sodding libertarian Tories get it.
Neo Cons don't. Nu Labour spin doctors don't. Nor does BAA. They all have processes to distort and stifle any opinion which disagrees with them.
And so it appears, does the Climate Camp and its apologists - and being right doesn't let you off the hook.
If you cant see the uncanny similarities between the Climate Camp media 'regulations' and these:
then I can only conclude you must be trolling for BAA, seeings how like all posters (except the photographers) you've acted under a pseudonym.
I'm outta here - if you ever get round to coughing up that tenner, or find out why Indymedia removed one of my posts (maybe I looked at 'em the wrong way?), you can contact my media team.
No flag or armband required.
Sion Touhig
John's Free Lunch
22.08.2007 22:07
"'Freeluncher' and 'photographic model', I give up. Your idea of activism seems to
regard simply being looked at, or being asked a question, as some kind of personal
violation...or even akin to assault."
Nowhere have I suggested I cannot be looked at, or that activists in general cannot be looked at, or asked questions. What I have been contending with you, is a) the notion that activism is 'worthless' without the mass mainstream media, b) the idea that journalists have a right to be anywhere, at anytime, recording even when asked not to, and c), that articles by people such as yourself in organs such as the Sun which have a significant impact on the mindset of Sun readers.
It's funny that you mention "personal violations" in this context, as the mainstream media is full of remorseful folk regretting how they hounded Diana to death while exercising their rights to get a story. This is the type of behaviour you seem to be defending.
"Nothing wrong in wanting to have a say. Plenty wrong in forcing others not to have
THEIR say, even if its 'unfair', or if you don't agree with it.
That ain't 'freedom', whichever way you spin it."
Nowhere either, have I, or anyone else "forced" others to do anything. As I understand, the media policy, which I STRESS had nowt to do with me, and which I;m not here to defend, was made through consensus at meetings before the camp took place. What kept you from going and "having your say"?? If only you'd went Sion, then your voice would have scuppered the consensus. But ye didnae, and now yer free to moan about it.
I can't say I understand your notion of 'freedom'. It's freedom for you, but not for me.
Your freedom ends where mine begins, and vice versa.
With regards to Johan Hari, he was at the camp, as the article he wrote the previous day from inside his tent made absolutely clear. He wrote an article weeks ago too in the Ind'y with the headline "Why we should all be there".
"A reminder - you bet that nobody could find ANY tabloid examples which supported
the Climate Camp's (or related orgs) case. I showed you a Sun article which gave
Plane Stupid's sole version of events regarding an action in Heathrow a year ago, and
another article from the Mirror exposing BAA secret plans.
I never said either paper was alright. That wasn't the wager.
So get your wallet out. I'll even take Paypal."
I don't think you showed enough to get the tenner Sion, the headline in the Sun article - "Protest is Plane Stupid" - sort of overshadowed the fact it was a semi-decent article. And the views of Sun readers, as seen in their comments pages, and incidentally again todays in it's letters page, seems to indicate in generated next to zero sympathy in the average Sun reader. And that was the crux of the bet, mate. The Mirror article had naff all to do with actions or camps or activism, so doesn't meet the terms of the bet either.
The Sun article was a rare exception to a rule, no doubt forgotten about by the time you've read Richard Littlejohn and The Sun Says editorial.
"being right doesn't let you off the hook"
Just so long as I'm right, I'll take ma chances ;-)
freeluncher
e-mail:
johnsfreelunch@hotmail.co.uk
Homepage:
http://talkingliberties.wordpress.com/
Sayonara Sion
22.08.2007 22:26
Personally I wouldn't get involved with Amnesty for any reason whatsoever. Nor would I particularly care if someone snuck a read of my Metro on the tube. However, you seem unable to comprehend just how much repression we experience when we are engaged as activists in an action - and you are naive in the extreme to think that every part of an action should be open to any scumbag who gets their wages by fucking people over for the Murdoch Corporation, or the Stasi emulating Met.
"you're defending private property now?"
Nope, but I am disagreeing with your suggestion that Marc was in a public place and had the right to walk over, refuse to tell people who he was or why he was there - and then thrust his camera into someones face. I repeat - he was there there because he was judged on what he has done, rather than what people thought he had done. I would, under the circumstances that followed, be reluctant to inform him of any covertly planned action, in advance, in the future. He hasn't come back on the thread to explain himself, but hopefully he will read this thread again and think about what kind of relationship he wants to build with the people who he chooses to photograph. And realise that he played in a part in what happened.
"Plenty wrong in forcing others not to have THEIR say, even if its 'unfair', or if you don't agree with it."
Bollocks - no-one stopped any journo from saying what they wanted to say. But working journos had limited access to the camp, and that was more than enough for most of us. We already had to put up with cops walking in endless circles past us 24 hours a day. And the journos who went undercover actually ended up having a much better experience because they actually experienced what is was like being a part of the camp. Those who were not prepared to put aside the cameras and notebooks ended up frustrated and feeling deprived, and then bleating on about dirty, unwashed squatters. Screw them.
"I've never disagreed with the blatantly obvious fact that the mainstream media ain't your greatest fans, or that you have the right to hate 'em. "
So why have you made so many posts expressing outrage and claiming that the media strategy deprived them, and that we should have to put up with them whether we care to or not? Thankfully you've decided to leave it, but in a nutshell you've outlined why we didn't open the camp up to them.
There is no free corporate press, and its idea of freedom is as fucked as yours. How free would the camp have been with hundreds of Murdoch's lackeys running around doing a revved up papparazzi routine? Which is what would have happened if there hadn't been a media strategy.And the best part of this thread is the way in which the journos who thought they were special cases who should have been given special access, ended up being just the same as all the others - resorting to exactly the same stereotypes. Maybe some of the liberals will understand why so many are against Murdoch's henchmen in the future.
The fact of the matter is this - there were many on site engaged in alternative media - but they weren't doing it to get money or a scoop - they were doing it to show stuff from the perspective of the activists - and their reporting is far more useful to us, and far more likely to do useful stuff.
Finally, I don't see that you have found a single article that supported what the camp was doing without a need to dilute it with dire threats of "criminal elements", "the violent anarchist minority" hoax bombs, or the other bullshit spread about by the cops..
You never earned a tenner at all.
I'm glad you've left cos its pointless trying to engage you.
photographic model
Hide 30 hidden comments or hide all comments