3 ms·

In all understanding of the laws of the United States... Uh, yes, that's what a public company has to do: maximize shareholder value. Now do what real journali

by tshtf 16y ago

In all understanding of the laws of the United States... Uh, yes, that's what a public company has to do: maximize shareholder value. Now do what real journalists are supposed to do do: break a couple of stupid rules, find a way to get out there, and take some damned pictures. What are they going to do? Shoot down your plane? Seriously. From the article: The problem, as many members of the press see it, is that even when access is granted, it’s done so under the strict oversight of BP and Coast Guard personnel. Reporters and photographers are escorted by BP officials on BP-contracted boats and aircraft. So the company is able to determine what reporters see and when they see it. I mean, what kind of journalist decides because the coastguard stopped you, you're going to sit back and write self-pitying articles like this? Grow some balls, just hide in a fishing boat for all I care, and take some damned pictures. From the article: Local fishermen and charter boat captains are also being pressured by BP not to work with the press. Left without a source of income, most have decided to work with BP to help spread booms and ferry officials around. Their passengers used to include members of the press, but not anymore. How can you take those pictures? EDIT: I apologize for not being able to properly use the <i> tags, I am in all honesty going through the arc3 code right now and this issue will soon be addressed. EDIT^2: Many kind thanks to anigbrowl for suggesting the correct formatting!

andreyf 16y ago
How can you take those pictures? Use your imagination ;) Edit (for you down-voters): Fine, here's some off the top of my head: * Rent your own plane and fly over without permission, * register a fishing company and get a job working for BP, * find a way to take pictures while avoiding detection, or just * bribe the fishermen. These are off the top of my head, I imagine someone whose full time job depends on thinking of them will have many more and better ones. Edit-reply: you're right about my first example, if violating the FAA regulations is as risky as it sounds. But my larger point, that entrepreneurial journalists should be able to find a low-risk way, stands.
- tshtf 16y ago
  I'm sure you recognize the scale of numbers, but as currently suggested the current surface area for the spill is: 157,168 square km So if you think there's a way to rent a plane to avoid FAA regulations over this enormous area, or bribe fisherman to do this and potentially risk their lives, go ahead.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Who's funding these entrepreneurial journalists? "The truth" is worth a lot of gratitude and 0 actual dollars.
  - dkarl 16y ago
    Journalism is all about advertising, i.e., page views and publications sold. This is one of the hottest topics in the U.S. right now. Nobody likes dry analysis; everyone is eager for a quick, vivid, and emotionally compelling way to engage with the story. Therefore, if you publish more and better pictures than the competition, you'll attract more (non-)readers and make more money.
    - jrwoodruff 16y ago
      Sure advertising pays the bills, but you don't think big media knows this? The truth is real news is less and less profitable. Reporting a story like this takes big resources - huge resources if you really want to break a new lede. Ultimately, shooting 100 high school basketball games for zoned publications and a s#%t ton of photo galleries is cheaper and will sell more ads. After all, what company wants their ad next to a photo of a dying, oil-covered bird.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Still doesn't add up. You're talking about a huge expenditure and significant personal risk in order to hopefully be a viral hit and not just be scooped and republished. Even then, you have to get lucky and pick up an iconic photo, it's not like you're going to find a bunch of great prose in the ocean besides synonyms for "lots of gallons". Why pursue this story instead of one that's much cheaper and will get you only a fewer impressions on average?
      - dkarl 16y ago
        If the photographers are already in the region racking up travel expenses and trying to charter private planes, expense isn't the problem.
  - deleted 16y ago
- jrwoodruff 16y ago
  You're right in your final concession, but this is where the weakening of mainstream media is most obvious. My guess is there are fewer reporters per publication on the ground with smaller expense accounts and fewer overall resources than what was available to their brethren covering Valdez in 1989. As a result they have to write whiny stories about how they can't get access when the story they wanted to have falls through. Newsweek should have left those pages blank with the words "oil spill photo spread here" instead.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  What you propose risks criminal and civil liability from multiple directions. Few, if any, photojournalists can afford to take such risks. Most news organizations won't. Yes, disasters and war are where much great photojournalism takes place. But it's ironically easier to do that abroad with the specter of the mighty US State Department at your shoulder than it is in your own backyard, where you're just a meddling shutterbug on the make and in the way - and will be described as such by an ambitious prosecutor. Sure,it's worth a try and might make for some great photos. But being accused of endangering safety or hampering the mission or both by the Feds is not fun, and rather than threatening you with a possible first-amendment case, it's a lot easier for them to go after your pilot and pressure them into signing a statement saying you suborned them into an illegal act. For these reasons, it's much likelier that news orgs will seek an injunction or declaratory judgment permitting them to gather pictures and video, rather than proceed by stealth.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    This is pure FUD. What criminal and civil statutes would be violated by taking a picture of a public place? Something a low-level drone working for the government says does not a law make.
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      Tell you what - hack into the SEC and DOJ servers and give me the skinny on that Goldman Sachs case. Yeah I know access is restricted, but its our tax dollars, right? I mean, what could go wrong? Basically, if you persuade the pilot of a plane or boat to flout FAA or Coast Guard regulations by bribery or deception, you could be charged with reckless endangerment or be accused of having committed various torts. I do not agree with this media blackout at all, but as a practical matter most journalists and pilots would rather not run afoul of some overstressed official with arrest powers.
- foomarks 16y ago
  Also add: * Balloons! http://bit.ly/99sLWo http://bit.ly/99sLWo
anigbrowl 16y ago
asterisks at the beginning and end of your emphasis worthy text will make it italic. No spaces next to the asterisks or * this happens.

by tshtf 16y ago

andreyf 16y ago

How can you take those pictures? Use your imagination ;) Edit (for you down-voters): Fine, here's some off the top of my head: * Rent your own plane and fly over without permission, * register a fishing company and get a job working for BP, * find a way to take pictures while avoiding detection, or just * bribe the fishermen. These are off the top of my head, I imagine someone whose full time job depends on thinking of them will have many more and better ones. Edit-reply: you're right about my first example, if violating the FAA regulations is as risky as it sounds. But my larger point, that entrepreneurial journalists should be able to find a low-risk way, stands.

tshtf 16y ago
I'm sure you recognize the scale of numbers, but as currently suggested the current surface area for the spill is: 157,168 square km So if you think there's a way to rent a plane to avoid FAA regulations over this enormous area, or bribe fisherman to do this and potentially risk their lives, go ahead.
jbooth 16y ago
Who's funding these entrepreneurial journalists? "The truth" is worth a lot of gratitude and 0 actual dollars.
- dkarl 16y ago
  Journalism is all about advertising, i.e., page views and publications sold. This is one of the hottest topics in the U.S. right now. Nobody likes dry analysis; everyone is eager for a quick, vivid, and emotionally compelling way to engage with the story. Therefore, if you publish more and better pictures than the competition, you'll attract more (non-)readers and make more money.
  - jrwoodruff 16y ago
    Sure advertising pays the bills, but you don't think big media knows this? The truth is real news is less and less profitable. Reporting a story like this takes big resources - huge resources if you really want to break a new lede. Ultimately, shooting 100 high school basketball games for zoned publications and a s#%t ton of photo galleries is cheaper and will sell more ads. After all, what company wants their ad next to a photo of a dying, oil-covered bird.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Still doesn't add up. You're talking about a huge expenditure and significant personal risk in order to hopefully be a viral hit and not just be scooped and republished. Even then, you have to get lucky and pick up an iconic photo, it's not like you're going to find a bunch of great prose in the ocean besides synonyms for "lots of gallons". Why pursue this story instead of one that's much cheaper and will get you only a fewer impressions on average?
    - dkarl 16y ago
      If the photographers are already in the region racking up travel expenses and trying to charter private planes, expense isn't the problem.
- deleted 16y ago
jrwoodruff 16y ago
You're right in your final concession, but this is where the weakening of mainstream media is most obvious. My guess is there are fewer reporters per publication on the ground with smaller expense accounts and fewer overall resources than what was available to their brethren covering Valdez in 1989. As a result they have to write whiny stories about how they can't get access when the story they wanted to have falls through. Newsweek should have left those pages blank with the words "oil spill photo spread here" instead.
anigbrowl 16y ago
What you propose risks criminal and civil liability from multiple directions. Few, if any, photojournalists can afford to take such risks. Most news organizations won't. Yes, disasters and war are where much great photojournalism takes place. But it's ironically easier to do that abroad with the specter of the mighty US State Department at your shoulder than it is in your own backyard, where you're just a meddling shutterbug on the make and in the way - and will be described as such by an ambitious prosecutor. Sure,it's worth a try and might make for some great photos. But being accused of endangering safety or hampering the mission or both by the Feds is not fun, and rather than threatening you with a possible first-amendment case, it's a lot easier for them to go after your pilot and pressure them into signing a statement saying you suborned them into an illegal act. For these reasons, it's much likelier that news orgs will seek an injunction or declaratory judgment permitting them to gather pictures and video, rather than proceed by stealth.
- jrockway 16y ago
  This is pure FUD. What criminal and civil statutes would be violated by taking a picture of a public place? Something a low-level drone working for the government says does not a law make.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    Tell you what - hack into the SEC and DOJ servers and give me the skinny on that Goldman Sachs case. Yeah I know access is restricted, but its our tax dollars, right? I mean, what could go wrong? Basically, if you persuade the pilot of a plane or boat to flout FAA or Coast Guard regulations by bribery or deception, you could be charged with reckless endangerment or be accused of having committed various torts. I do not agree with this media blackout at all, but as a practical matter most journalists and pilots would rather not run afoul of some overstressed official with arrest powers.
foomarks 16y ago
Also add: * Balloons! http://bit.ly/99sLWo http://bit.ly/99sLWo

anigbrowl 16y ago

asterisks at the beginning and end of your emphasis worthy text will make it italic. No spaces next to the asterisks or * this happens.