Popular shows vilify street photographers

T

Tuolumne

Veteran
Local time
6:12 PM
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
3,005
Location
The Negev, Israel
View My Gallery
In just one week's time two prime time TV shows have vilified street photographers. The theme of last Sunday's Dexter, the popular show about a likable serial killer, had Dexter murder a child molester who had been photographing children on the street when Dexter discovered one of his girl friend's children was the target of the perv.

Then, earlier in the week, Law and Order:SVU had a show about a young boy who had uncontrollable urges to molest children hooking up with an older perv who endorsed sex with children and looked at their photos online. One of the photos was of Eliott Stabler's (one of the star detectives on the show) daughter. Elliott beats the crap out of the older perv, the younger perv is sodomized by his step-father with his son's home made baseball bat to teach him a lesson, and then murdered by the older perv for some reason I can't remember.

1) Why do I watch such unredeemable cr*p?
2) Tell me people on the street aren't thinking about these shows when they watch you shooting photos of people, especially children.
3) It's going to be alot more dangerous being a street photog than it used to be.

/T
 
Really, how many RFF people have been sodomized with a home made baseball bat then?

Just be yourself, make photos, and stay sensible - unless the baseball bat thing is what you'd like...
 
Such popular paranoia is why I refuse to specifically avoid taking pictures of children. If all honest photographers give in to such ridiculous fears, then the paranoids have won and soon anyone taking pictures of kids will be assumed to be deviant and harmful. What a sad society that would be!

On the other hand, it -IS- dangerous to be a street photographer. Just last week, I let my guard down for a minute and took a picture of a scruffy looking guy in downtown San Francisco. He verbally harassed me, yelling obscenities for several minutes, took out a small metal truncheon and jabbed me repeatedly in the back of my neck, and finally took out a can of mace and attempted to spray me in my face. Fortunately for me, the can was either old or malfunctioned, because nothing got in my eyes or face: a few heavy drops hit my arm and left chemical burns for a few days, but that was all. I stayed as calm as I could in order to avoid any further escalation (and likely damage to my person and camera), informed him of my legal right to photograph him, and told him that if he did anything more I was going to call the police and he was going to go to jail for assault. Not a pretty scene, and although I admit my own responsibility for being overly incautious, it doesn't do to minimize the possible dangers either.


-- Kevin
 
Oh, and I have been threatened by a parent and a teacher of a local school with having my picture taken and posted on the internet as a pedophile merely for being on a beach and toting a camera while junior high kids were present-- I hadn't shot a single frame of them.

They only backed off when my shooting partner and I calmly explained that we had no problems with them taking our picture and posting it on the 'net, but that if they labeled or implied we were pedophiles or child pornographers they would have a libel lawsuit on their hands. The paranoid people ARE out there.
 
Harry, yes I'm serious. He didn't swing it -- merely jabbed the back of my neck because I was trying to leave. No injury, but if he had swung it or the situation had escalated further, I would have defended myself (I have enough taekwondo training that I was confident he would come out the worse of the exchange, but that would hardly matter much as I would have lost in it too: time, hassle, police reports, possible physical injury, and camera damage). As it was, I assessed the situation as being most likely to settle down if I remained calm, which is what happened.
 
What ever happened to "nice" normal TV like "The Donny & Marie Show", "Make Room For Daddy" and "I Love Lucy"?

I'm glad I don't get involved in television these days - let others think what they want to think about me - I have nothing to hide - let them arrest me, debase me and try to humiliate me - I have nothing to hide - let them try to make a martyr of me - I have nothing to hide.

Because, really, the last thing I want to do, when the world's gone insane is to run and hide. I would much rather go out and photograph the insanity... 😀

Dave
 
People are idiots. They sit at home watching ever more pornographic programming, then assume that's what the "real world" is like.

I happened to watch that same episode of Dexter. First time I'd seen the show, and it's utter nonsense. Lots of important sounding psycho-babble and voice over narration that can't disguise that fact that it's pure, voyeuristic pornography of people being killed for the amusement of the TV audience.

What's even scarier is when a gaggle of people so educated get together and decide to take action to "protect the children." Yikes.
 
endustry said:
The only thing I wonder is: how did Dexter kill the photog? Drowned in Xtol? Strangled with a cable release? Inquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...

Strangled with a garrote. Interesting thought that it might have been a cable release. But he used a digital camera, so I doubt it. Hey interesting defense - Why do you use film? Answer: Only pervs use digital. :angel:

/T
 
There's another thread floating around RFF that asks 'what if I have nothing to say?' I think it applies to street photogs (like those above) who take pictures of people who don't want them taken just cuz it legal. H**l, it's stupid! What do you 'say' with a roll of pix of people you don't know?
I picture neg sleeves full of unprinted useless shots stored for posterity.
 
Ducky, I imagine all sorts of famous photogs had many people say exactly that same line about their work too. I, for one, am very, very glad that Winogrand, Friedlander, HCB, Kertesz, William Kline all took thousands of "pix of people they don't know"! At least, no matter the final outcome, I know I'm in good company 🙂


P.S. Three of my "pix of people I don't know" are currently hanging in an (admittedly small) exhibit in Silicon Valley -- so they're not "unprinted" nor useless.
 
Last edited:
With most U.S. States having conceal carry laws, there is little reason a properly trained, responsible and law-abiding person taking photographs in public areas should have to endure any attack at any time.

Many of us enter areas like alleys, isolated fields and old industrial sites where help at least minutes away by cell phone and if you have a model with you, you're responsible for their safety as well.

In those places where a firearm is forbidden, a smooth weighty monopod never out of place and always at hand. It's certainly better than nothing and actually has value as a photographic tool.

On the other hand, if you provoke a situation don't be surprised if the feedback is unpleasant and up close.

Being open about what you're doing is so much better than trying to 'sneak' shots IMO, though pre-focusing for quick grabs does make for less time for embarrassment on the part of the subject, whom may not welcome your extended attentions.

As far as children, I personally try to really limit my time shooting kids and will usually sit and wait with my camera in plain view of adult guardians for 20-30 minutes, so if anyone is concerned they have time to either remove their kids from the area or say something to me about what I'm doing. I've never had the cops called on me and I am prepared to defend my presence by following the law and using common sense.



There are always going to be people that object to photographers and it's surprising how badly they can react when they think their rights are being violated so being ready to calm down a situation is just part and parcel of public photography.

Cheers. Eli
 
Last edited:
kevin m said:
People are idiots. They sit at home watching ever more pornographic programming, then assume that's what the "real world" is like.

I happened to watch that same episode of Dexter. First time I'd seen the show, and it's utter nonsense. Lots of important sounding psycho-babble and voice over narration that can't disguise that fact that it's pure, voyeuristic pornography of people being killed for the amusement of the TV audience.

What's even scarier is when a gaggle of people so educated get together and decide to take action to "protect the children." Yikes.
Click to expand...

Was the poster for this programme a picture of a happily smiling, blood-spattered idiot? If so, I saw it in Cologne and found it unbelievably repulsive.

As I don't have a television, it won't affect me directly other than this.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom