What It Feels Like To Be Photographed In A Moment Of Grief

On the night of the shootings in Newtown, Conn., a woman named Aline Marie attended a prayer vigil at St. Rose of Lima Roman Catholic Church, which was packed with local residents and the media. After about 45 minutes, Marie saw the statue of Mary and knelt down to pray.

"I sat there in a moment of devastation with my hands in prayer pose asking for peace and healing in the hearts of men," she recalls. "I was having such a strong moment and my heart was open, and I started to cry."

Her mood changed abruptly, she says, when "all of a sudden I hear 'clickclickclickclickc​lick' all over the place. And there are people in the bushes, all around me, and they are photographing me, and now I'm pissed. I felt like a zoo animal."

What particularly troubles her, she says, is "no one came up to me and said 'Hi, I'm from this paper and I took your photograph.' No one introduced themselves. I felt violated. And yes, it was a lovely photograph, but there is a sense of privacy in a moment like that, and they didn't ask."

Read full story here: http://www.npr.org …t-of-grief?sc=tw&cc=share

i've taken pictures like that. only the family gets to see them. and after a decent interval. ergo, I could never be a journalist.

It's not even a very good photograph.

Newtown was really mobbed by the press, which is typical when there is a huge newsworthy event like this. The thing is, a million photographers and a million reporters all come away with pretty much the same story overall. You aren't going to get a 'scoop' in the aftermath of tragedy because the shooting is literally over, the families are hiding behind spokespeople, and everyone else just says the same thing over and over.

One thing I saw was a suggestion that for this type of thing the major media outlets should band together and send one team of picked people with an agreement to share all of the material. It seems workable. As I see it when you are the 50th reporter to put ask someone "How did you feel when you learned your neighbor was killed horribly?" you are not about to get a pulitzer winning answer anyway.

Reducing the mob of journalists in these kinds of cases specifically would certainly improve the image of the media, and I think the coverage would be just fine.

Major media outlets will never band together. People who are within corporations will share (i.e. we share with other Hearst publications) or people who have other 'gentlemen's agreements' will share but you will never get people to take time and select a team when that time could be spent on the scene. Its our job to document what happens so others may see. Sure that may not seem like a particularly technically amazing image to those of you on here who like to argue about bokeh and who has the newest camera body, but if it tells the story and is a meaningful moment than it should be captured. The best way to go about it is as unobtrusively as possible. I saw a lot of my industry brothers and sisters doing it right in Sandy Hook and I saw a lot of them doing it wrong. We are just people and its a tough job that is thankless and not for everyone.

A mirrorless camera would have helped here.

Not to be an *******, but the media didn't appear out of nowhere. She had to know they were there and they would be taking photos.

what kind of article do you write when you don't have an article to write? an article about a photograph used in another article about something in the news. lame all around.

JamesDurbinMedia wrote in post #15546783
Major media outlets will never band together. People who are within corporations will share (i.e. we share with other Hearst publications) or people who have other 'gentlemen's agreements' will share but you will never get people to take time and select a team when that time could be spent on the scene. Its our job to document what happens so others may see. Sure that may not seem like a particularly technically amazing image to those of you on here who like to argue about bokeh and who has the newest camera body, but if it tells the story and is a meaningful moment than it should be captured. The best way to go about it is as unobtrusively as possible. I saw a lot of my industry brothers and sisters doing it right in Sandy Hook and I saw a lot of them doing it wrong. We are just people and its a tough job that is thankless and not for everyone.

This already happens. All the time. What do you think a pool reporter is? As for the photo, whoever said it wasn't good has no idea what they're talking about. Does it tell a story is the first question that will be asked. And it certainly does that. What people don't understand is that in a photojournalist setting, there's no time to take 20 shots and get it exactly right. The moment is there and then it's gone. You have to get the shot right now.

Respectfully sir, I work for a newspaper owned by one of the largest media corporations in the United States. I understand what sharing does and does not take place. Someone stated that they thought it wouldn't be hard for all the news companies to get together and send a team. My response was directed to that situation.

I'm not an insider but I think they generally pool when an event is planned and known. It's not quite as feasible when something like this happens since they'd need time to agree to get in on the sharing.

At least, that's my logical way of thinking. Maybe I'm way off.

cdifoto wrote in post #15546833
Not to be an *******, but the media didn't appear out of nowhere. She had to know they were there and they would be taking photos.

Yeah, they don't seem like they were shooting from the bushes.

cdifoto wrote in post #15546833
Not to be an *******, but the media didn't appear out of nowhere. She had to know they were there and they would be taking photos.

My thoughts too. Having a 'private moment' amidst a media frenzy is not going to be private.

Part of the story of the shot is the anonymity of the praying woman.
Having her named in the caption of the photo would add nothing to it and as it was taken in what appears to be a public place, she had no expectation of privacy.

JamesDurbinMedia wrote in post #15548897
Respectfully sir, I work for a newspaper owned by one of the largest media corporations in the United States. I understand what sharing does and does not take place. Someone stated that they thought it wouldn't be hard for all the news companies to get together and send a team. My response was directed to that situation.

My response was to your statement that it never happens. In this case, it's too fluid to depend on a pool situation. Everyone will want their own angle on it.

I was fixer (US = field producer) for a number of European news outlets at the Dunblane massacre in 1996. Since my client roster was international (RAI, SVT, NRK, TDF, Canal Plus, etc), my output was 'pool' was definition.

But the end of the first day (Wednesday), there was already several more comprehensive pool arrangements in place. This was agreed to mitigate the inevitable overwhelming of a small community by the hoards of the world's media. And it worked - an almost unique example of decency in a world where competition is everything. It meant bereaved parents would not continually be harrassed by crew after news crew.

And, amazingly, at a lunchtime meeting on the Friday, the news circus agreed to leave the town by 5.00pm that day, leaving the community to its grief. All outlets scrupulously observed that commitment, except - surprise - the Daily Mail and The Sun.

Disasters like Sandy Hook do tend to bring out the best as well the the worst in the news media.