February 22, 1998

It's been a strange week for me and I have watched the news very closely over the past few days. Why? Because I'm amazed with the reporting on the Clinton affair (excuse the pun...) and in the same breath the press is reporting proposed laws governing restrictions to the press and most specifically, photojournalists that concern the privacy of those that are the subjects of reports and stories.

This photo, using the guidelines of the current proposed legislation, would have me in jail for 20 years. Not only did I invade Pat Robertson's personal space, but I used a zoom lens and shot the image on private property.

First, I have to say that I was amused with Senator Dianne Feinstein's press release, which you can read at http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/releases/paparzzi.html about a law that she and Sen. Orrin Hatch, of Utah have sponsored that will limit the press in many situations. I find it quite ironic and, quite honestly very asinine of the lady senator to write both a bill and press release and  misspell the subject that the bill is about. It's Paparazzi- with 3 "A's", madam senator. If you're going to regulate it, at least know how to spell it. Ahhh, our government at work.

I first, don't think that anyone would argue that out-of-control photojournalists should be punished for causing harassment, injury or death. No question about it- and I think that any reputable photojournalist would agree. To chase a famous actor, such as the case with Tom Cruse this week, while he's trying to take his child home from school is crazy and the photographers who endangered Cruses' children's safety enough to warrant a call to 911 should be disciplined by their respective publications or news services. There's no excuse for this kind of behavior and I  and most photojournalists would agree that it should not be condoned or tolerated at any level.

The problem comes when you try to write laws specifically governing the actions of a few stupid individuals. The United States currently has laws that should deal with the actions of these people and to do otherwise is redundant and restrictive to an otherwise good profession. A good example of this is using a doctor who kills a patient during what would normally be routine surgery. Do you write restrictions for all of the other doctors because you have one or two incompetent ones? Of course not. In this situation, you have to weigh the greater good of the profession over the stupidity of a few. The workings of the free press are much the same way. Over the past few weeks, there have been a rash of stories about proposed laws that will restrict the work of the typical photojournalist. This is mostly due to the vagueness of the laws and the photographic incompetence of those writing the bills. I've also found that there are also federal bills and state bills that directly oppose each other on a purely (photographically) technical level.

Again, a clear invasion of personal space and on the private property of the NASCAR folks too.

For example, The state of California has proposed legislation that would allow a 15 bart "buffer zone" between camera-toting journalists and the subject. The law is modeled after those of abortion clinics that give patients  a specified amount of protected space. Yet the federal law as written by Ms. Feinstein states that photographers will not be allowed the use of "Zoom Lenses" (I am assuming here that the jest of this is long, telephoto lenses. You must understand that there are also zoom lenses with focal lengths that are "wide angle"- meaning that the focal length is less than 35mm.). So, how do you shoot a photograph of a person from 15 feet away without using a telephoto lens? Under normal circumstances, it won't work.

Another section of the Feinstein bill is that, quoting from the Freedom Forum's article by Corey Bradley dated 2/16/98, 

"Under the bill, photographers using zoom lenses and other enhancement devices, without actually stepping on private property, would be considered trespassers if the picture could not otherwise have been taken without physically trespassing."

What this means to the average photojournalist on the street is that if you photograph a news event, such as a hostage situation, and you photograph the police taking the person into custody with a 600mm lens in front of their home(all the while, keeping that 15 bart buffer zone in mind if you're in California...) and the defendant doesn't like the image, they can sue the photographer for trespassing- even if the photographer is on public property (Such as a street or sidewalk)  when the image was shot.

What many people don't understand is that there is a thing called "Public Domain". This means that if you are walking down a street and someone shoots your picture and publishes it (with or without your permission), you can't sue them for invasion of privacy simply because you are in a public environment. So, like it or not, this is the law in virtually every state. It's one of those items that protects journalists from situations like the one I've just used.

Another aspect of this is the privacy issue. Lawmakers suggest that "Privacy is dignity". Yet, anything that happens within the legal system in a community is a matter of public record. You don't have to be a journalist to view the records of the courthouse, so how is this inhibiting the privacy of the individual? In my opinion, it doesn't make sense.

Another note of interest within the Feinstein bill is that in the press release, it's noted that several Constitutional experts were assistants in reviewing the bill and writing its final draft. Yet, nowhere in the text of the release does it say that there were any journalists to assist in the technical matters of the bill. I think that if Senator Feinstein was truly interested in fair play with the real photojournalists of the world, she would ask for input. And since I am not presently a photojournalist, but have the experience and technical background to help her see the issues that the honorable photographer faces, I am volunteering to assist the senator with this. As a former journalist, I have nothing to directly gain by this legislation nor do I have anything to lose. So, because of this, I'm a good choice for the senator and I hope that she takes me up on my offer.

This particular image was shot with a 600mm lens, which would fall under the big zoom provision. I also got permission to shoot these images from an adjoining piece of private property, which would also be illegal.

The state of Georgia has  proposed legislation that would tax newspapers, T.V. stations and radio stations for every "violent" story that they print or broadcast. This, in my opinion, is even more asinine than the federal laws. First, by who's definitions do you use for "violent" content? and how do you keep track of such a thing? Are you also going to tax the television shows that have violent content? It seems like this would be discriminatory if you don't.  It seems like it would be almost impossible for this kind of legislation to actually pass muster through the lawmakers and the courts.

The other issue here too is that the Georgia state government would be doing more of a disservice to its constituents than assisting them. Can you imagine all of the "Pet of the week" stories that you'd be seeing on the Georgia TV stations? It's unreal. The only free press is an uncensored press. This type of taxation is in my opinion unfair and also a form of censorship.

As a former journalist, I can see both sides of this issue. On the one hand, you have people who need and deserve a certain amount of privacy in their lives. For example, I was photographing an "All Star" softball game in Haines City, Florida at the now defunct "Boardwalk and Baseball" theme park. One of the participants was Kim Alexis and her former husband. I had been on the field and looked over toward the stands and saw Kim, her husband and their child. It was a wonderful image and I worked my way toward them. I put my camera up to photograph them and her husband (who had his back toward me...) suddenly moved. I figured he didn't see me and I corrected my angle. Suddenly, Kim looked at me and very nicely explained that they had wanted to keep their children out of the press and would I mind not shooting their child. I simply said "sure" and thanked them for their time and moved on. After all, there were plenty of other photos there that day and I can respect keeping the child out of publication if it's the parents wishes. No big deal.

I've also been asked to steak people out. It's not well known, but the settlement for the silicon breast implant was made here in our fair town. The chief photographer for the Tuscaloosa News got a call from the AP office here in Alabama with a request for a photograph of the lawyers meeting or walking out of a meeting. We were given the names of the lawyers, the kind of car they drove and all of the details about the meeting. The boss and I found the car and did a walk-through of the restaurant looking for the persons that matched the descriptions of those in the meeting. We found them and went outside and got our cameras ready. When they walked out, we shot the pictures of them together and got them to stop and talk to us about the settlement. And as all of you know, this turned out to be a major news item.

Former President George Bush was on private property when this image was made. It too was shot with a 600mm lens.

Another steak-out that I was asked to participate in was with the former head coach of the University of Alabama basketball team- Wimp Sanderson. You may recall that Wimp was fired from the Capstone several years ago for hitting his secretary (and at that time, also his mistress...). Wimp went into hiding and the "Wimp sightings" started to abound. The local press was intent on getting shots of the coach and checked out every lead. As luck would have it, the then-publisher of the paper happened to live across the street from the coach. Someone in the newsroom had the idea to sit in the publishers garage and shoot an image of Sanderson at his house. I was asked to photograph the image and had agreed to. This is mostly because it had already been established that the coach had indeed hit the woman. Had there been a question at that time of his guilt or innocence, I may not have been as quick to say OK. After much thought the publisher turned the idea down and as things worked out, a better image was made anyway of Wimp walking out of Coleman Coliseum with some of his personal items and several plaid jackets over his shoulders. It was one of those images that told the whole story and was far better then what I would have shot in the garage of the publishers house.

A University of Alabama gymnast reacts to a perfect routine and landing at the SEC Championships at LSU. This shot, because of its use of a telephoto lens and being photographed on private property, could come into question.

Admittedly, there are many things that the press does that irritate, enrage and awe me. There are few broadcasts that I see that I don't find questionable reporting in at least one story, but on the same note, most of these editions or broadcasts also have an abundance of excellent, professional journalism. And as it has been said by many people, the one item that truly represents a free society is its ability to have a free and open press. We in America, need and believe in this premise of our constitution and it's one that needs to be kept for all time. Have a great week. February 22, 1998 Mark Lent

Behind the Viewfinder - A Year in the Life of Photojournalism
http://www.digitalstoryteller.com/YITL
This site is protected by United States Copyright Laws
Website Design Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000 F.R."Fritz" Nordengren Digital Storyteller