Comments on: A blow to Citizen Journalism

By: Taluka Byvalnian

Taluka Byvalnian — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:38:23 +0000

Graham said “The police were already there.”
Just watching yesterday’s Insiders and Malcolm Farr said that at the time Bidgood took the photos, the police had the matter in hand.
From reports I had before that I believed that wasn’t the case.
So, apologies, Graham.
However, Malcolm stated that Bidgood previously was a photographer (I wasn’t aware of that either) and first of all asked for the money for himself. The DT people said no, later Bidgood came back to them and said he would give the money to charity.
Each story has it’s twists and turns, doesn’t it?

By: scot

scot — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:29:08 +0000

Isn’t the idea that it’s a ‘personal’ context (and therefore different to a ‘news’ event) by commenters, actually belied by the fact that the guy was trying to set himself on fire to protest the decision of a Minister of the Government? The point of the man’s extreme actions is to garner publicity for his cause? He’s doing it out in public, near parliament. So I think ideas of a morality revolving around ‘personal privacy’ are also way off the mark.
I don’t think he did anything legally, morally, or ethically wrong. His only mistake was a lack of political foresight that the self-appointed guardians of public morality would start baying for blood.

By: Dallas Beaufort

Dallas Beaufort — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:36:27 +0000

His only crime was getting caught and the amount of $1000 which is dirt cheep for a photograph of a citizens public attempt to torch themselves on the front lawn of parliament house.

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:14:29 +0000

You don’t think Annabel has her tongue in her cheek do you – “anything as irritating as consistency”?
And with the deepest of respect for Miss Crabb, I’m not sure that her position represents the definitive truth on the issue, just because it is hers.

By: Ian Nance

Ian Nance — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:58:47 +0000

Why all this intense dissection of the simple act of taking a photograph?
Any action which ocurs in a public area, any person in that area at any time is visible to any other person in the vicinity, and its image may be preserved.
What the hell is the difference between recording an image on a photgraphic system, and recording it in one’s mind?

By: Taluka Byvalnian

Taluka Byvalnian — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:47:06 +0000

Graham
On the journalistic side, I don’t think Annabel Crabb agrees with Bidgood’s journalistic endeavours : from today’s SMH: Now, thanks to his freelance photographic activities, he is in a whole new world of pain.
In the fourth estate, of course, we win awards for taking pictures of suffering people that we sell for money, but let’s not confuse this debate with anything quite so irritating as consistency; Bidgood’s a ghoul and he must be made to pay.
Bidgood would probably take out the silver medal in Labor backbench trouble-making this year (Belinda Neal has claimed gold and until we can find someone game enough to argue with her, that’s the way it’s going to stay).

By: examinator ant

examinator ant — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:19:49 +0000

Graham,
As I said in your chat room, I think the LEGALISTIC citizen photo journalist stance misses the point. Likewise your photo is both CONTEXTUALLY irrelevant and misleading to the issue at hand. There is a world of difference between a child on fire because of a military action in a foreign country (international event) and graphic representation of a highly personal issue here. Simply not comparable one is journalism the latter opportunism. I would even debate that the latter is even news merely cynical sensationalism to sell advertising. Bidgoodâ€™s status gave the story that â€˜extraâ€™ authority for front page coverage. Ask yourself was his picture necessary for the story? Of course not it was a â€˜grabberâ€™. The news adage â€˜if it bleeds it leadsâ€™ comes to mind.
The real (parliamentary) issue is/was that Bidgoodâ€™s actions showed a significant lack of judgement and sensitivity. Particularly as one whose job it is to gain and maintain the confidence/trust of ALL of his electorateâ€™s constituents especially those at breaking point end of a crisis. Itâ€™s all about trust in one’s elected representatve.
Even I as a thinking person (and if I was in his electorate) would be reticent in seeking his assistance if the issue was one that required sensitivity.

By: Suzan

Suzan — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 04:36:56 +0000

What is wrong with the viewing public’s citienship? Why would we find photos of people setting themselves on fire something we might like to purchase? Where is the respect for human life?

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:45:49 +0000

Who was he supposed to ring Taluka? The police were already there.

By: Taluka Byvalnian

Taluka Byvalnian — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:25:03 +0000

It was only after he was caught out selling the photos that he decided (or it was decided for him) on the donation to charity.
Surely, Graham, his first duty would have been to use his phone for calls rather than photos. Calls for help.
Perhaps you should change the title to
A Blow to citizenship.