River Dog
Always looking
This just looks wrong to me. Was it always this way?
Luna
Well-known
Well it wasn't always 2011. Things change.
ray*j*gun
Veteran
Not in south east Asia.
pacco
Established
Of course!
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...les/20100203-MV-Haiti-Angles-embed1-480px.jpg
(But this one is actually no wartime situation. But the first picture that comes into my mind...)
Last edited by a moderator:
swoop
Well-known
It isn't always that way. It just happens sometimes. Like Haiti, the soldiers toured the photojournalists that way for protection when the looting started. Except in Libya there is no protection, so you just stick together for safety. It happens even on city streets when covering spot news. I think a lot of people here have a seriously skewed idea of what photojournalists actually do for a living.
River Dog
Always looking
I understand but it is a bit like being on the other side of the looking glass.
Was it always this way?
I'm not sure, but I would think that it is more prevelant these days.
alistair.o
Well-known
Some incoming changes the 'picture' radically.
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
I wouldn't be standing behind an RPG launcher like that. At the very least, you'll get singed.
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
Most definitely.
I don't think one picture is necessarily indicative of the state-of-the-art. Every war/conflict/police action/no-fly-zone/peace keeping mission whatever is radically different from the last and equally different from the next (in logistics,execution, and strategy if not politics and catalyst) This undoubtedly has an impact on how it is reported and photographed.
dave lackey
Veteran
Paps in a war zone? I dunno... this doesn't look quite right to me.
dave lackey
Veteran
Does anyone spot an M9 in the mix? Maybe that is what is odd about these photos?
SciAggie
Well-known
This is from the boston.com website. It is an airstrike in Libya. I wouldn't want to be standing around here:
Ken Smith
Why yes Ma'am - it folds
This just looks wrong to me. Was it always this way?
No, this is the second group of reporters. The first group was standing behind the militia when they fired their RPGs. The photogs in this photo are known as the "Replacements."
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
Same here, but well, do we know how it looked next to the guy who shot that photo?
Well, I count myself into the group of people who just don't know how photojournalists in conflict zones work these days. The most common thing I know about is two writers with one photographer, but I could of course be wrong.
Would be cool to get some inside information how they work these days (of course I know it may be a "problem" or safety issue), but still curious...
shashinka-ichiban
写真家 一番
I hate to admit, but photo ops like this are becoming more and more the norm, less among the embeds.
oftheherd
Veteran
Only seeing red X's.
jpmac55
Established
Hey River Dog, an enlightening post. The responses make sense of it to folks like me.
I just assumed a war photojournalist or two would be hanging together, capturing their story, hoping or planning to be at the right place at the right time. I expect to see a group like that cover a particular event like a car bombing. Certainly dangerous and well respected work regardless.
I just assumed a war photojournalist or two would be hanging together, capturing their story, hoping or planning to be at the right place at the right time. I expect to see a group like that cover a particular event like a car bombing. Certainly dangerous and well respected work regardless.
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
It's fairly basic. One photographer doesn't want to get an email/text from the editor saying, "AP/AFP/etc. all running picture of rebel firing RPG. WTF were you?" So...
newspaperguy
Well-known
I can assure you it wasn't that way in Korea... Back in the day, he muttered.