Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 31 Jul 2014 (Thursday) 08:17
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

The Most Recent Media Harassment

 
whuband
Goldmember
Avatar
1,433 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
     
Jul 31, 2014 08:17 |  #1

Here is a Wall Street Journal story about an incident in Saratoga NY along with the video shot by the news crew. As the judiciary says, "Ignorance of the law is no defense". However, that is not equally applied toward law enforcement officers who are ignorant.

The story:
http://online.wsj.com …4c97805411847e8​8c806.html (external link)

The video:
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=bChXANbtbFY (external link)


1D4, 6D, 7D2, Sony a6000 with Sony16-70, Rokinon 12mmf2, Canon lenses: 17-40L, 17-55 f2.8, 10-22, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 70-200mm IS 2.8, 300mm 2.8 IS, 580EXII (3), 430EX, Alien Bees.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
bps
Cream of the Crop
7,607 posts
Likes: 405
Joined Mar 2007
Location: California
     
Jul 31, 2014 10:01 |  #2

Wow, that's pretty bad. Another example of people's rights being trampled on by overzealous and uniformed law enforcement. I respect and appreciate law enforcement and realize that there are thousands of good law enforcement personnel for every bad one, but that doesn't excuse the behavior of these few.

Bryan


My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
378 posts
Likes: 74
Joined Jan 2009
     
Jul 31, 2014 12:32 |  #3

What's the issue?

>>> … A lieutenant from the Mount McGregor Correctional Facility ... said the crew had not gotten prior permission to film on prison grounds….

>>>It [the state Department of Correctional Services] ... said Mulholland violated a policy intended to ensure the safety of all staff, visitors and prisoners.

Is the mentioned policy state law? Is it constitutional? Was the prison officer charged with enforcing it?

If the policy the NewsChannel 13 employees (apparently knowingly) violated is bad policy, it should be done away with by the state legislature. If it's good policy, it should be enforced.

NewsChannel 13 and the Associated press are grandstanding rather than reporting.


Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link) Shadows of Turning (external link) Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
groundloop
Senior Member
981 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Jun 2012
     
Jul 31, 2014 12:49 |  #4

Tedder wrote in post #17068354 (external link)
What's the issue?


I think the issue is this:

Officers in the meantime allowed tourists access to the site, the station reported.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
5,474 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 601
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jul 31, 2014 12:58 |  #5

If the news crew was disrupting the enjoyment of the historic site for the other tourists, then I think it's entirely reasonable for the officers to tell them to settle down or leave. I've never seen a news crew that was quiet and inconspicuous.

The officers can't ask them to delete the footage that they already shot, however. That was a bad call on the part of the corrections officers, for sure.


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
378 posts
Likes: 74
Joined Jan 2009
     
Jul 31, 2014 13:13 |  #6

groundloop wrote in post #17068379 (external link)
I think the issue is this:

Yes, and state parks routinely require that film crews have filming permits—even when they're not filming an adjacent occupied state prison, as the NewsChannel 13 employees were doing.

The NewsChannel 13 employees certainly knew full well that a permit was required, and they probably received one on their visit one day before this incident.

It seems to me that people who believe such policies to be bad should lobby to change them rather than knowingly violating them and then screaming "foul!"


Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link) Shadows of Turning (external link) Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlFooteIII
Senior Member
444 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 38
Joined Jul 2013
Location: New York City
     
Jul 31, 2014 13:27 |  #7

state parks routinely require that film crews have filming permits

But there is a difference between a film crew and a news crew. I have a major problem with the government interfering in a news story.


Specializing in Theatrical Photography. See my work at:
www.alfoote3photograph​y.com/ (external link)
www.facebook.com/alfoo​te3photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Jul 31, 2014 13:43 |  #8

AlFooteIII wrote in post #17068479 (external link)
But there is a difference between a film crew and a news crew. I have a major problem with the government interfering in a news story.

What news were they filming? The event they filmed (without any interference) the day before could be regarded as news, but there was nothing happening when they were stopped, they were just shooting general footage which could have been shot any time.

With nothing happening that could be construed as news, they were just a film crew who should have arranged a permit in advance.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
378 posts
Likes: 74
Joined Jan 2009
     
Jul 31, 2014 14:05 |  #9

AlFooteIII wrote in post #17068479 (external link)
But there is a difference between a film crew and a news crew. I have a major problem with the government interfering in a news story.


I wonder whether the permit policy distinguishes between a news film crew and any other type of film crew. If it does, I'd wonder why it does and whether it should.

In this case, the policy is probably directed more toward news crews because they're thought to be more likely to reveal the identities of inmates, staff, and visitors while filming the state prison.

In any case, your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with someone who objected to a highway patrolman telling a reporter and cameraman from a TV station to step away from an accident while emergency crews did their rescue work.

If I were on the scene and had my camera, I asked, should the patrolman permit me to stand beside the TV station's crew and film the rescue too? Should everyone else with a camera also be allowed to do so?

The issue, then, was who gains special access and why. And who determines who gains that special access?


Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link) Shadows of Turning (external link) Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
groundloop
Senior Member
981 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Jun 2012
     
Jul 31, 2014 14:23 |  #10

Tedder wrote in post #17068440 (external link)
Yes, and state parks routinely require that film crews have filming permits....

Are you positive a filming permit was required, or is that just conjecture? It didn't say a word about that in the linked story. It did say, however, that they were filming from an access road and the police basically just didn't want them to film.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,761 posts
Gallery: 177 photos
Likes: 7517
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Jul 31, 2014 14:38 |  #11

Wow, Again amazed at how photographers on this forum are so quick to side with the group that is taking away our rights.

Lets assume for 1 second that for some crazy reason the local news must actually get a permit from Albany to film at Grants cottage, or on a public state road side... (frankly I don't believe this, I think this is something the officer just parroted to make his point) but lets assume it is so.

Was the officers approach and methodology in any way reasonable?

No. Not in the least.

this dude treated the newscaster in a manner in which he would treat a prisoner, someone who's rights have already been removed by the state. This was not how a Police Officer would treat a Citizen.

A few points;
Corrections officers have absolutely no business attempting to enforce State Park rules.
Corrections officers can not pull you over on a state/public highway.
They can not block state roads with their vehicles
They can not detain anyone other than prisoners under any circumstances.
They can not seize private property.
They are not charged with the enforcement of any law outside of the facility. (the facility which was very clearly in the background, and the public road was not even NEAR the fence that separates it.)

Saratoga Newscasters are the ugliest bunch of people I have ever seen on TV other than in a "reality show" like "Cops". These people are NOT HD ready, and need to be replaced with attractive people. They can go back to work on News Radio.

This was one of the most egregious over reaches of this type I've ever heard of.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Andrushka
"all warm and fuzzy"
Avatar
3,735 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Oct 2007
Location: OC, CA
     
Jul 31, 2014 14:52 |  #12

If news crews had to get permits to shoot - that would definitely be an easy way to control the flow of information :-)


http://www.paradigmpho​tographyoc.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
378 posts
Likes: 74
Joined Jan 2009
     
Jul 31, 2014 15:15 |  #13

groundloop wrote in post #17068607 (external link)
Are you positive a filming permit was required, or is that just conjecture? It didn't say a word about that in the linked story.

I based my comment on the following two portions of the incomplete and one-sided AP story:

>>> … A lieutenant from the Mount McGregor Correctional Facility ... said the crew had not gotten prior permission to film on prison grounds….

>>>It [the state Department of Correctional Services] ... said Mulholland violated a policy intended to ensure the safety of all staff, visitors and prisoners.

What "prior permission" was he referring to, and what policy were they violating? The story withholds that information.

groundloop wrote in post #17068607 (external link)
It did say, however, that they were filming from an access road and the police basically just didn't want them to film.

The opening sentence of the article says they were "on the grounds of an empty, soon-to-be-closed state prison." The article also says that the "empty" prison is "being staffed."


Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link) Shadows of Turning (external link) Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,263 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6330
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jul 31, 2014 15:24 |  #14

jeeze, I'm sure those cops will get a stern slap on the wrist......


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moose10101
registered smartass
1,686 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 251
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Jul 31, 2014 15:35 |  #15

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17068631 (external link)
Wow, Again amazed at how photographers on this forum are so quick to side with the group that is taking away our rights.

Lets assume for 1 second that for some crazy reason the local news must actually get a permit from Albany to film at Grants cottage, or on a public state road side... (frankly I don't believe this, I think this is something the officer just parroted to make his point) but lets assume it is so.

Was the officers approach and methodology in any way reasonable?

No. Not in the least.

this dude treated the newscaster in a manner in which he would treat a prisoner, someone who's rights have already been removed by the state. This was not how a Police Officer would treat a Citizen.

A few points;
Corrections officers have absolutely no business attempting to enforce State Park rules.
Corrections officers can not pull you over on a state/public highway.
They can not block state roads with their vehicles
They can not detain anyone other than prisoners under any circumstances.
They can not seize private property.
They are not charged with the enforcement of any law outside of the facility. (the facility which was very clearly in the background, and the public road was not even NEAR the fence that separates it.)

Saratoga Newscasters are the ugliest bunch of people I have ever seen on TV other than in a "reality show" like "Cops". These people are NOT HD ready, and need to be replaced with attractive people. They can go back to work on News Radio.

This was one of the most egregious over reaches of this type I've ever heard of.

The article states that the news crew was on prison grounds. Are you claiming the article is incorrect?

As for you being "again amazed", I find that a significant majority of POTN members consistently come down on the side of the photographer. In this case, I'm not sure if they had the right to be doing what they were doing. However, the attempt to seize the video was very likely unlawful.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,093 views & 0 likes for this thread
The Most Recent Media Harassment
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is AstroNate
1337 guests, 272 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.