Why this looks so bad is the question - didn?t this happen because the photographers were there, don?t they promote such behaviour and glorificate it in the process? I think the blog-post I linked to isn?t too far of when it asks if this is a photo-op. An organized shoot if you will. With a crime happening in the middle of it. With the police not getting through it because a camera is in their way. That is how it looks.
I know that the truth (probably) is somewhere in the middle ... both pictures tell a story that might not reflect the reality of what happend there ... but - it?s one of the many examples that prove that Press-coverage (and specifically Pictures) should always been viewed very, very critical by the public as it may very well be not close to the truth.
A couple of months ago, I was covering a music festival. Late one night, two guys started a fight. I started taking photos, but were accosted by angry people asking why I was taking photos of that, and not the concerts?
I'll say the same to you as I said to the woman. Madam, I've photographed pretty much every concert and artist the last four days, not to mention happy people having a beer and having fun. But this is happening. I document what happens, no matter what happens. Wether or not it's supposed to be published is not up to me. That is up to the editor or editorial staff. I just make sure I get the photo.
Of course these photographers took 500 photos of the demo itself. But this happened. And it's their job to document what happens at this demo, no matter what it is.
There seems to be a row of them waiting to get passed the guy with the camera infront of them, blocking their path ... and you certainly don?t want to forcefully push press aside ... or all those cameras will be pointed at yourself in a heartbeat documenting "police brutality against the press" ...
They seem to have quite a nice area blocked free for that guy to just go nuts on the windows and for them to take pictures of it ...
With respect to the British police and their actions towards photographers, that is a real problem and nothing to be joked about. British police have over the last years been very active in attacking, bullying and harassing photographers, especially during protests. There have been clear cases of police actively putting press photographers into registers for trouble makers because they cover demonstrations.
It's no joke, it's very serious business. As for this situation, the press has a right to cover it, however, they have a duty to let the police pass. Had they been asked, they would have moved.
Is it not illegal now, to photograph the Police?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/16/protest-police-liberty-central
And I agree with you
Plisskin - anything to sell papers, shape/manipulate public opinion. ...
Nope. It's not. It never was. It was illegal to photograph police within the confinds of planning a terrorist operation, or something like that. Photographing police officers has never been illegal in Britian, neither has it been illegal to photograph any public place per se in the last years. There has been trouble with regards to the police's (or perhaps the home office, I can't recall) ability to designate certain areas as areas where photographers are subject to stop&search. It's been a problem in the subway and in proximity of important buildings like parliament.
I love the response I got from a police officer at Trondheim Airport V?rnes a couple of months ago. I asked him if photography was alloved.
"You're alloved to bring your camera, so you're alloved to take photos."
My - o my how simple and perfect an answer!