Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Forum & Miscellaneous | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial

  
 
lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/opinion/obamas-orwellian-image-control.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Obama’s Orwellian Image Control
By SANTIAGO LYON

THE Internet has been abuzz over the spectacle of President Obama and the prime ministers of Britain and Denmark snapping a photo of themselves — a “selfie,” to use the mot du jour — with a smartphone at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela in South Africa on Tuesday.

Leaving aside whether it was appropriate, the moment captured the democratization of image making that is a hallmark of our gadget-filled, technologically rich era.

Manifestly undemocratic, in contrast, is the way Mr. Obama’s administration — in hypocritical defiance of the principles of openness and transparency he campaigned on — has systematically tried to bypass the media by releasing a sanitized visual record of his activities through official photographs and videos, at the expense of independent journalistic access.

The White House-based press corps was prohibited from photographing Mr. Obama on his first day at work in January 2009. Instead, a set of carefully vetted images was released. Since then the press has been allowed to photograph him alone in the Oval Office only twice: in 2009 and in 2010, both times when he was speaking on the phone. Pictures of him at work with his staff in the Oval Office — activities to which previous administrations routinely granted access — have never been allowed.

Instead, here’s how it’s done these days: An event involving the president discharging his official duties is arbitrarily labeled “private,” with media access prohibited. A little while later an official photo is released on the White House Flickr page, or via Twitter to millions of followers. Private? Hardly.

These so-called private events include meetings with world leaders and other visitors of major public interest — just the sorts of activities photojournalists should, and used to, have access to.

In response to these restrictions, 38 of the nation’s largest and most respected media organizations (including The New York Times) delivered a letter to the White House last month protesting photojournalists’ diminished access.

A deputy press secretary, Josh Earnest, responded by claiming that the White House had released more images of the president at work than any previous administration. It is serving the public perfectly well, he said, through a vibrant stream of behind-the-scenes photographs available on social media.

He missed the point entirely.

The official photographs the White House hands out are but visual news releases. Taken by government employees (mostly former photojournalists), they are well composed, compelling and even intimate glimpses of presidential life. They also show the president in the best possible light, as you’d expect from an administration highly conscious of the power of the image at a time of instant sharing of photos and videos.

By no stretch of the imagination are these images journalism. Rather, they propagate an idealized portrayal of events on Pennsylvania Avenue.

If you take this practice to its logical conclusion, why have news conferences? Why give reporters any access to the White House? It would be easier to just have a daily statement from the president (like his recorded weekly video address) and call it a day. Repressive governments do this all the time.

American presidents have often tried to control how they are depicted (think of the restrictions on portraying Franklin D. Roosevelt in his wheelchair). But presidents in recent decades recognized that allowing the press independent access to their activities was a necessary part of the social contract of trust and transparency that should exist between citizens and their leaders.

Consider these moments: John F. Kennedy’s son peeking out from under his desk; Richard M. Nixon flashing a two-armed V-for-victory sign as he departed office in disgrace; Ronald Reagan waving from a hospital window after cancer surgery to assure America that he was O.K.; George W. Bush’s astonishment on learning of the 9/11 attacks, and his remarks to rescue workers at the rubble of the World Trade Center days later.

It’s true that photojournalists will on occasion capture embarrassing gaffes (think of Gerald R. Ford’s stumbling on the steps of Air Force One or Mr. Bush’s reaching for a locked door at a news conference in China). These images show — surprise — that the president is human.

Allowing media access and providing official photos are not mutually exclusive. News outlets can choose (as The Times has occasionally done) to use an official, or handout, photo when its news value is compelling and the photo is taken in a place logically off limits to journalists, like the private residential quarters of the White House. But The Associated Press rejects a vast majority of White House handouts because they show newsworthy activities of public significance, in locations where we strongly believe journalists should have access.

Until the White House revisits its draconian restrictions on photojournalists’ access to the president, information-savvy citizens, too, would be wise to treat those handout photos for what they are: propaganda.

Santiago Lyon, a longtime photojournalist, is vice president and director of photography at The Associated Press.



Dec 12, 2013 at 12:59 PM
jvphotos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


Yup, saw this the other day. In addition to this, there have been at least 3 other articles/blog posts/editorials posted on the times site in the past month or so that deal with this same topic. It's nice to see them keeping this issue on 'simmer'.

I personally have had a gripe about this for a while... ever since I started looking at the stuff we got of past presidents compared to what we're getting these days. And while I don't like mixing my hobby and politics, I feel like this is an issue that "both sides" (assuming you can actually lump everyone into two sides! lol) should be able to agree on as photographers.

EDIT: I tried to take the img tags out of these but they're still popping up, if this post is too much of a thread-jack please let me know and I'll delete these out entirely.

http://firstrunfeatures.com/presskits/mostdangerousman/mcnamara_lbj.jpg

http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/hist/ovalofficetapes/Images/Vietnam/31july1968_lbj_robb_lbjl.jpg

http://atlanticsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Lyndon-Johnson-Robert-McNamara-Paul-Nitze.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4aOwiW7Mr4A/TcD01Rx80qI/AAAAAAAAL6M/Spu9lg3FA0w/s1600/lbj_mcnamara.jpg

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/images/McNamara/A886-8.jpg

http://www.lbjlibrary.net/assets/lbj_tools/photolab/photos/9/medium/a903-5a_med.jpg

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071030085753/genealogy/images/2/27/Lyndon_Johnson_Richard_Nixon_1968.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m7wfVYhUa04/Tg34I0Ff4mI/AAAAAAAAAJo/TWBcxDmOw_8/s1600/Lyndon_Johnson_and_Richard_Russell.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-6s6yRaGQG8s/TWwroq4SQ1I/AAAAAAAAA1I/o76IeOI4DDQ/s1600/Martin_Luther_King%252C_Jr._and_Lyndon_Johnson.jpg

http://www.anglonautes.com/hist_us_20_civil_rights/hist_us_20_civil_rights_pic_lbj_mlk_others.jpg

http://mije.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/full_column/wallace_terry_lbj.jpg

http://moorishwanderer.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/lbj.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qBggHFdrg5s/TitzcDD5fKI/AAAAAAAAJoA/qdWLZXbdJuk/s1600/LBJ+2.jpg

http://www.nytstore.com/assets/images/extralarge/NSAP358_EXTR.jpg

http://www.skilluminati.com/img/lyndon-johnson-texas-politics.jpg



Dec 12, 2013 at 01:32 PM
lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


Outstanding reflections of history!!!

Thanks for the great post !



Dec 12, 2013 at 01:40 PM
Jon Joshua
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


The NYT had no such qualms with 0bama before the last election?


Dec 12, 2013 at 02:54 PM
lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


Jon Joshua wrote:
The NYT had no such qualms with 0bama before the last election?


Well, I don't think you can characterize the Times as a conservative paper. And, remember, this was a OPED - it doesn't reflect the editorial board of the paper.

Leopards don't change their spots



Dec 12, 2013 at 03:04 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


Oh, please. Why can't the British PM take a selfie? It's not like photography is some holy activity. It wasn't that long ago that there were paintings and drawings. 50 years from now, who knows what will be used, perhaps something mental? Times are changing and the NYT may be out of business at some point.

EBH



Dec 12, 2013 at 03:35 PM
lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


EB-1 wrote:
Oh, please. Why can't the British PM take a selfie? It's not like photography is some holy activity. It wasn't that long ago that there were paintings and drawings. 50 years from now, who knows what will be used, perhaps something mental? Times are changing and the NYT may be out of business at some point.

EBH


Maybe I am missing something here?

Who is talking about a selfie??

This is about the WH Press Corps not having access to the president, not about selfie's.



Dec 12, 2013 at 04:15 PM
DanBrown
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


I'm going to pose the same question that I did in your other post. Is it permissible to copy and re-distribute an entire news article or blog entry just because you cite the source. You might be able to quote a phrase or two to make a point (and cite the source), but isn't wholesale copying and pasting the whole article considered copyright infringement?



Dec 12, 2013 at 04:29 PM
anthonysemone
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


Cold day in hell before I'd waste a snap on him. OTOH, gimme unfettered access to "blondie" and I'd be good to go


Dec 12, 2013 at 04:32 PM
lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


anthonysemone wrote:
Cold day in hell before I'd waste a snap on him. OTOH, gimme unfettered access to "blondie" and I'd be good to go






Dec 12, 2013 at 04:40 PM
lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


DanBrown wrote:
I'm going to pose the same question that I did in your other post. Is it permissible to copy and re-distribute an entire news article or blog entry just because you cite the source. You might be able to quote a phrase or two to make a point (and cite the source), but isn't wholesale copying and pasting the whole article considered copyright infringement?


I think it would be counterproductive for any outlet to assert such a claim as you are alluding to. Also, please look at the article, there is no copyright notice because the author is an OPED, not a Times employee or contractor. So, the Times can't copyright his work - its not news.







Dec 12, 2013 at 04:45 PM
Ronny Mills
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


lukeb wrote:
I think it would be counterproductive for any outlet to assert such a claim as you are alluding to. Also, please look at the article, there is no copyright notice because the author is an OPED, not a Times employee or contractor. So, the Times can't copyright his work - its not news.



Doesn't the writer own the copyright? Just like when we make a photo? And didn't you use his/her copyrighted work without permission?



Dec 12, 2013 at 05:27 PM
lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


Ronny Mills wrote:
Doesn't the writer own the copyright? Just like when we make a photo? And didn't you use his/her copyrighted work without permission?


Not when you submit unsolicited material to a public forum - just like what is going on on this page. Its a public forum, and you can't copyright it.



Dec 12, 2013 at 05:53 PM
DanBrown
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


lukeb wrote:
Also, please look at the article, there is no copyright notice because the author is an OPED, not a Times employee or contractor. So, the Times can't copyright his work - its not news.



Look at the bottom of the page...

© 2013 The New York Times Company

And the part about the Times being unable to copyright this because its (sic) not news is just plain balderdash.




Dec 13, 2013 at 11:25 AM
nolaguy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


Dan's right. An imperfect summary but the gist of it is:

Original works inherit copyright status upon creation. The date that defines legal ownership in the event of dispute is marked upon publication (or registration) whether the cute little c is included/claimed or not.

Fair use of someone else's intellectual property, in this case, would include "limited" snippets or citations, credited of course, for the purposes of education, etc.

To recite another's work (credited or not) in such entirety without permission is cause for frowns, time out, spankings, voodoo curses, litigation and Dante's eighth circle of hell.




Dec 14, 2013 at 08:26 AM
Savas K
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


As to the PO’s topic, the current administration at inception controlled the message to an all too willing and compliant media; a media that lapped it up and parroted what the administration wanted it to. So boo-boo that the photographers don’t have access to take real photos. The reason? Look at Obama’s strained expressions during the first Romney debate when Obama was trounced. That was the exceptionally rare moment in the administration’s history that TV viewers saw the opposite of the cherry-picked expressions out of literally thousands of images that are snapped monthly by the in-house team.



Dec 20, 2013 at 06:06 PM
Sarsfield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · NYT Not Too Happy Photo Editorial


So boo-boo

So boo-boo. This entire administration summed up perfectly. So boo-boo.



Dec 20, 2013 at 09:42 PM





FM Forums | Forum & Miscellaneous | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.