DavidCoward Photography wrote:
Freedom is no more important than self-restraint.

What?

DavidCoward Photography wrote:
Freedom is no more important than self-restraint.

Art of the nude wrote:
What?

Eh, I was trying not to get long-winded. Basically I'm saying that freedom of the press is necessary in a free society, but that freedom comes with a responsibility. The press want to sell "news" and so they really go after the sensational stories. But too often they show a lack of restraint which can really damage innocent people/businesses.

Just like we Americans enjoy our right to freedom of speech, we also need to practice restraint.

Darren Brade wrote:

I pretty much agree with you, the media shouldn't be allowed to publish any traceable details until there is a conviction. I often see stories on the news and wonder if they are right or wrong.

Here's a story that happened in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ … -here.html

The media isn't the problem.  People are the problem.  The media should be able to report what is public record (a person got arrested and the charge) no different than you being able to post to facebook that your priest got arrested and charged with child molestation-  it might keep another kid from being hurt while they guy is free awaiting trial.  It also is merely reporting the basic facts.  Arrested when?  Charged with what?

It comes down to rights and common sense.  I don't blame the media and the media shouldn't be restricted because people can't use good sense.

To answer the OP's question- I think it depends on your resilience and determination more than it hinges on what the public thinks.  *Most* people can't remember key players associated with Enron, or the name a single priest convicted of molesting a child.  Generally speaking the general public isn't even concerned about a photographer (of all people) charged with a crime, convicted or not-  J Lo's butt is more important to them.

Creative Image wrote:
I vote "yes" because most of the cases cited here are pre - social media.  I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that someone with a big enough grudge could do a lot of damage by having a media story, justified or not, go viral on the web.

That is the big danger these days. There is the viral chinese whisper effect where one person's "alleged" becomes anothers fact as something is tweeted, posted about in forums and re-blogged and do not have to account for accuracy or fact.

If you want to read how it can get and how easy online media is to manipulate check out Ryan Holiday's book.

TheLittleG Photography wrote:
personal note.
quite a few years ago i was falsely accused of a crime, i was arrested, it was published in the papers, went through a trial, the jury found me NOT GUILTY and i was not guilty, i did not do what i was accused of. me found not guilty was never reported, there was nothing in the paper about it or anything. i couldn't sue and win. my character was destroyed. there are certain things to this day that require that i tell them that i have an "arrest record". even though i was not convicted, then i have to go through and explain everything to them about it and give them court case numbers and the such. yes i could get it esponged but i don't have the money to do that.

And this is exactly why you should be allowed to sue the courts, the media and anyone else who jumped on the bandwagon once you're exhonorated.

Mark Salo wrote:
How easy would it be to ruin a photographer?

Pretty easy.  It seems that photographers are more suspect than most other occupations.

Not true.  Again, To Catch A Predator didn't catch a single legit photographer.  They caught law enforcement, teachers, church clergy, and even district attorneys ... but not once did they "catch" a photographer. 

School teachers are always scrutinized when hired.  Police and even security guards are to go through background checks.  People of religious leadership are often given trust without verification.  When was the last time that someone actually verified you as a photographer?  When they did that, what did they do?  Google you?  Did any of those people you've shot with run a criminal background check?  If not, then why not?  They trust you. 

Now I Ask you, how hard would it be to start over as a photographer?  Not very!  Cameras are readily available without the registration process that gun or car ownership requires.  If you've been falsely accused, there are things you can do to either clean up your name or simply change your name.  It's far more more devastating for those who are working as teachers, or in law enforcement to continue working.  A BART transit cop shot a man dead and was brought to trial.  He was found not guilty of "murder" and served a few days for a much lessor offense, but no way in hell is he going to be able to go back to being a cop! 

I have heard of teachers being falsely accused that were never able to go back to teaching even though they were acquitted.  Photographers might come under suspect, but really we're a dime a dozen!  It might be easy to taint a photographers name, but it's also easier to clear it up and go back to business than for some other folks in various other occupations.  So it all depends!

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
you can pay the media off I hear

but you gotta do it in advance


or just be a missing minority girl

I don't mean to hijack, but sadly that is true!  Missing minority children get so little media attention.  / hijack

Patrick Walberg wrote:
People of religious leadership are often given trust without verification.  When was the last time that someone actually verified you as a photographer?  When they did that, what did they do?  Google you?  Did any of those people you've shot with run a criminal background check?  If not, then why not?  They trust you.

Two points:

At my church, they adhere to a list of rules known as "Safe Sanctuaries".  Included in those rules are requirements that anyone working with minors must first pass a police fingerprint background check.

Last summer, the police stumbled across us exiting an abandoned building where a model and I had been shooting.  They read the model the riot act about what did she really know about me.  Asked if she had done a criminal background check on me (she had done normal reference checks with other models).  I didn't know it before, but the body of a rape/murder victim had been found in that building a couple years ago.

All Yours Photography wrote:

Two points:

At my church, they adhere to a list of rules known as "Safe Sanctuaries".  Included in those rules are requirements that anyone working with minors must first pass a police fingerprint background check.

Last summer, the police stumbled across us exiting an abandoned building where a model and I had been shooting.  They read the model the riot act about what did she really know about me.  Asked if she had done a criminal background check on me (she had done normal reference checks with other models).  I didn't know it before, but the body of a rape/murder victim had been found in that building a couple years ago.

I admire that your church does background checks.  I'd said "often" ... meaning that it seems like many don't verify.   Recently a Catholic church came under fire in the San Jose area because a sex offender had a letter of permission from a priest allowing him to attend an event of the church while working in setting up staging.  A minor at the event noticed the man whose identity is on a sex offender watch list, and notified a Sheriff.  As you can imagine, it caused a disruption at the event!  Even though he had some sort of letter of permission to be there, he was asked to leave and he did so. 

Again, I think that the damage done by false accusations along charges that end in acquittals can be hurtful to ones career as a photographer, but not as difficult to overcome as those in some other occupations.   Photographers don't "have to" be in contact with minors, but the majority of teachers do!

All Yours Photography wrote:

Two points:

At my church, they adhere to a list of rules known as "Safe Sanctuaries".  Included in those rules are requirements that anyone working with minors must first pass a police fingerprint background check.

Last summer, the police stumbled across us exiting an abandoned building where a model and I had been shooting.  They read the model the riot act about what did she really know about me.  Asked if she had done a criminal background check on me (she had done normal reference checks with other models).  I didn't know it before, but the body of a rape/murder victim had been found in that building a couple years ago.

I struggle with the truthiness of this.

Police stumbled across you exiting an abandoned building. Were they loitering? Getting high? Having sex? Why are your cops hanging out around abandoned buildings?

Then, they ask if she did a criminal background check on you?

This one time, at band camp....

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
So....let me see if I understand this.


Nicole simpson gets killed and the media can report on it.

But under Jebbia's rule, when OJ gets arrested there is no news report.

When he gets arraigned....no news report.

The trial...no news.

He gets found not guilty, no news.


So no one ever finds out that OJ was on trial for killing his wife?

That's the Jebbia plan?

:-)

John Jebbia wrote:
This really applies to any profession..

I just got done reading a story about a photographer in Las Vegas who has been arrested on child porn charges. I'm not going to link the story, but it's fresh as of a day or so ago.

Anyways, I was reading the story and watched the video and it got me to thinking. This guy has just been accused and arrested. Not convicted.

However, the report splashes his face all over the net, the address to his studio, his business name, etc, etc, etc.. No matter the outcome, innocent or guilty, this guy's ruined.

Questions: If you were in this guy's shoes, and you were exonerated what would you do? Would you pretty much be forced to give up photography? Would you continue photography, having to explain to every potential client that you didn't do it. Would they believe you? Would they think you just got off on a technicality? Would they just move onto the next photographer who doesn't have all the baggage?

Opinion: Upon conviction, report away! But until then, I think it's utter bullshit that the media can in effect ruin a person, regardless of guilt or innocence.

Anybody can be ruined!  Just the smear is enough and the media are like sharks looking for blood!  :-)

In the end sensationalism sells!  Sex sells!  Crime sells!  Put it all together and WOW!  The perfect storm!!

Again, anybody can be ruined and it really doesn't take that much effort...  :-(

William Kious wrote:
The fundamental problem is that the media is granted entirely too much freedom to speculate, editorialize and report unsubstantiated "facts". The public, in its lust for salacious "news", encourages the behavior.

Even when they're wrong, you will never see/hear a retraction.

Agreed. Straight factual reporting is uncommon. "Experts" comment on superficial elements of a case and then blame the judicial system if they are proven wrong.

Dan Howell Tearsheets wrote:
But then again, I work in media and have a journalism degree...what do I know.

If that's so, you should know to finish with a question mark rather than a full stop. 

DavidCoward Photography wrote:
Freedom is no more important than self-restraint.

Art of the nude wrote:
What?

DavidCoward Photography wrote:
Eh, I was trying not to get long-winded. Basically I'm saying that freedom of the press is necessary in a free society, but that freedom comes with a responsibility. The press want to sell "news" and so they really go after the sensational stories. But too often they show a lack of restraint which can really damage innocent people/businesses.

Just like we Americans enjoy our right to freedom of speech, we also need to practice restraint.

Ah.  I thought you were referring to the "freedom" to be a photographer, and that a lack of "self restraint" had to be behind any problems."  Never mind. 

DavidCoward Photography wrote:
Freedom is no more important than self-restraint.

Art of the nude wrote:
What?

DavidCoward Photography wrote:
Eh, I was trying not to get long-winded. Basically I'm saying that freedom of the press is necessary in a free society, but that freedom comes with a responsibility. The press want to sell "news" and so they really go after the sensational stories. But too often they show a lack of restraint which can really damage innocent people/businesses.

Just like we Americans enjoy our right to freedom of speech, we also need to practice restraint.

Art of the nude wrote:
Ah.  I thought you were referring to the "freedom" to be a photographer, and that a lack of "self restraint" had to be behind any problems."  Never mind. 

Ha ha, no worries! My thinking parts and my writing parts don't always work well together.

Ben Hinman wrote:
1.) People don't care about the truth. People care about winning.
2.) People will screw you over a million times over if it means just one more dollar.
3.) If someone has no qualms making you suffer and actively goes about ruining your career, you are equally justified in defense. If the charges fail to convict, counter-sue and go for their money and their reputation. It may be the only way to regain your own.

I don't think I've ever seen this headline:

NBC LOSES LIBEL CASE
Company's stocks plummet

Bunny 007 wrote:

If that's so, you should know to finish with a question mark rather than a full stop. 

Really? Do you want to bet on that? Rhetorical statements including questions can be punctuated differently than a sentence. Maybe you need an updated style book.

Dan Howell wrote:

Really? Do you want to bet on that? Rhetorical statements including questions can be punctuated differently than a sentence. Maybe you need an updated style book.

I don't have a degree in Journalism, but I learned that before I entered college.

William Kious wrote:
The fundamental problem is that the media is granted entirely too much freedom to speculate, editorialize and report unsubstantiated "facts". The public, in its lust for salacious "news", encourages the behavior.

Even when they're wrong, you will never see/hear a retraction.

I totally agree. It does not have to be a high profile case to be reported on the news initially but unless it is a high profile case, after the media run it in the ground, it is never followed up. If this guy is not guilty, I doubt you will get a news report showing his face and saying that he was wrongly accused and the case was dropped unless he spends several years in jail and some law student or big time lawyer jumps through major hoops and get him out of jail. The news will report how this guy was wrongly convicted and deserve restitution or following him to figure out how he is going to put his life back together. I see stories on the news all the time and wonder whatever became of the case, I try googling it and can never find anything beyond the arrest not even the court date on some. You would have to use Nexus Lexus and look up the actual trial to find the decision. It is a catch 22 but we do believe in the US that "you are innocent until proven guilty"  At this point , it is just an allegation.

Dan Howell Tearsheets wrote:
Yes, all governmental actions should remain secret until their effect is felt by the general public. NOT

Your assertion that the press should not report crime until the verdict is so against the nature of our country's tradition of checks and balances that it is downright irresponsible. If you have specific problems about media coverage point them out and rally against them, but to suggest that media does not have a right and responsibility to question and report about alleged crime, corruption and debate is certainly counter to the constitution and, in my view, wholly uninformed. History, practice and statistics are against your view.

But then again, I work in media and have a journalism degree...what do I know.

What you likely don't know is that many (most?) people who don't work in the media are disgusted by the media's insistence that they have a responsibility to dig up dirty laundry on anyone and everyone, but denial that they have a responsibility to be objective in formulating story lines and thorough in verifying facts.  I don't think anyone is arguing that the media shouldn't report news, only that they shouldn't create it.

BTHPhoto wrote:
What you likely don't know is that many (most?) people who don't work in the media are disgusted by the media's insistence that they have a responsibility to dig up dirty laundry on anyone and everyone, but denial that they have a responsibility to be objective in formulating story lines and thorough in verifying facts.  I don't think anyone is arguing that the media shouldn't report news, only that they shouldn't create it.

Wow, many erroneous assumptions in your reply, but to get back to the issue in THIS thread, if you look at the searchable reports from the local news the coverage was quite basic reporting the actions of law enforcement. That should be far from anyone's estimation of 'creating' the news.

Dan Howell wrote:
Wow, many erroneous assumptions in your reply, but to get back to the issue in THIS thread, if you look at the searchable reports from the local news the coverage was quite basic reporting the actions of law enforcement. That should be far from anyone's estimation of 'creating' the news.

Many people are also disgusted by the media's self righteous implications that they obviously beyond reproach, and suggestion that anyone who doesn't see that is unintelligent, any time they are criticized.