![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Just a note on media
Oct. 15th, 2007 07:38 amI understand there are some pissed-off fans out there in the wake of the weekend auto wreck - and rightfully so - but as happens every time something seedy with the paparazzi pops up (and it does far too frequently), I see a lot of hate and disdain for "the media" in general.
For those of you who don't realize, let me make it perfectly clear: Paparazzi do not represent ALL media. Most genuine newswriters don't even consider them in the same class. Just as there are levels of ick in your profession, you need to understand the same exists in ours. Most of us are underpaid professionals who do the best we can to keep up with local and world events in an accurate and fair manner for non-"yellow" publications, and that we do it with your best interests in mind so that you might be informed of important things you don't have the time to go out and find out about yourself - such as politics, taxes, voting records, etc.
Have I ever taken photos at a wreck? Yep. Many, in fact. No famous people that I know of, but definitely some people who were injured or dead or had died and been taken away. There is genuine news value to it so long as you're only the recorder and not the instigator, as increasingly seems the case with the paparazzi in Orlando's wreck - without respectable publications' photos and factual accounts from witnesses, many people would never know what it's like to see or experience a bad wreck. It serves as a safety reminder, ESPECIALLY for kids who've just gotten their licenses, because these shit-for-brains members of our driving population think they can't die. (Just remember what you were like at 16 or 18. I do.)
Would I have taken photos of his wreck if it had happened in my small town? It's a fender-bender, though there were injuries. If I overheard it on a police scanner at the office, and it was close enough to easily get to, I might have gone to the scene. Likely, for me, the actual news story would have been the swarm of photographers and the police report itself, as well as any witnesses willing to talk with me about what they saw firsthand. The only real value of writing about the wreck itself - in the wake of there being no DUI - would be as a cautionary against reckless driving (on the part of whomever caused it, and if the police report contained the account of a swerving driver, that would be in my article) and the value of wearing seat belts. And yes, the fact he's famous would probably have some bearing on my interest in the story, though to be fair, I wouldn't write it any differently than I would for anyone else in a wreck, save to note a brief resume for him.
In short, not every photographer at wreck is a bottomfeeding vulture trying to sensationalize the event - I have NOT taken photos of corpses and terribly-injured people before, even though it would've been easy to do so, and I would have legally been within my bounds to do so. It's a personal call for each reporter; I didn't see the value in those cases, not when I could just as easily write "they were killed" or "critically injured." (Frankly, the injured were usually gone by the time I got there anyway, since paramedics drive and work pretty damn fast, thankfully.) I usually found a photo of the wreck scene itself, or the damaged vehicle(s), worked just as well to make readers shiver and be a bit more careful out on the roads. (Also, just as a note: A REAL reporter doesn't get in the way of rescue or report-gathering efforts on the part of paramedics or cops - not only is it stupid, it's dangerous.)
Feel free to ask questions. I don't mind.
ETA: In what world do you have to live to think Orlando Bloom - while seemingly a nice guy and a decent actor, but, let's face it, NOT a Midas-touch titanium celebrity immune from trouble - warrants such special fucking treatment from the LAPD to cover up drunkenness or anything else? (You have to page down for it.)
For those of you who don't realize, let me make it perfectly clear: Paparazzi do not represent ALL media. Most genuine newswriters don't even consider them in the same class. Just as there are levels of ick in your profession, you need to understand the same exists in ours. Most of us are underpaid professionals who do the best we can to keep up with local and world events in an accurate and fair manner for non-"yellow" publications, and that we do it with your best interests in mind so that you might be informed of important things you don't have the time to go out and find out about yourself - such as politics, taxes, voting records, etc.
Have I ever taken photos at a wreck? Yep. Many, in fact. No famous people that I know of, but definitely some people who were injured or dead or had died and been taken away. There is genuine news value to it so long as you're only the recorder and not the instigator, as increasingly seems the case with the paparazzi in Orlando's wreck - without respectable publications' photos and factual accounts from witnesses, many people would never know what it's like to see or experience a bad wreck. It serves as a safety reminder, ESPECIALLY for kids who've just gotten their licenses, because these shit-for-brains members of our driving population think they can't die. (Just remember what you were like at 16 or 18. I do.)
Would I have taken photos of his wreck if it had happened in my small town? It's a fender-bender, though there were injuries. If I overheard it on a police scanner at the office, and it was close enough to easily get to, I might have gone to the scene. Likely, for me, the actual news story would have been the swarm of photographers and the police report itself, as well as any witnesses willing to talk with me about what they saw firsthand. The only real value of writing about the wreck itself - in the wake of there being no DUI - would be as a cautionary against reckless driving (on the part of whomever caused it, and if the police report contained the account of a swerving driver, that would be in my article) and the value of wearing seat belts. And yes, the fact he's famous would probably have some bearing on my interest in the story, though to be fair, I wouldn't write it any differently than I would for anyone else in a wreck, save to note a brief resume for him.
In short, not every photographer at wreck is a bottomfeeding vulture trying to sensationalize the event - I have NOT taken photos of corpses and terribly-injured people before, even though it would've been easy to do so, and I would have legally been within my bounds to do so. It's a personal call for each reporter; I didn't see the value in those cases, not when I could just as easily write "they were killed" or "critically injured." (Frankly, the injured were usually gone by the time I got there anyway, since paramedics drive and work pretty damn fast, thankfully.) I usually found a photo of the wreck scene itself, or the damaged vehicle(s), worked just as well to make readers shiver and be a bit more careful out on the roads. (Also, just as a note: A REAL reporter doesn't get in the way of rescue or report-gathering efforts on the part of paramedics or cops - not only is it stupid, it's dangerous.)
Feel free to ask questions. I don't mind.
ETA: In what world do you have to live to think Orlando Bloom - while seemingly a nice guy and a decent actor, but, let's face it, NOT a Midas-touch titanium celebrity immune from trouble - warrants such special fucking treatment from the LAPD to cover up drunkenness or anything else? (You have to page down for it.)
