Well, frankly , this is the kind of B.S. the media's pushed for years in order to sell a story--that photogs are are likely potential pervs and child molesters. I've felt the backblast from this perception myself.
I can only assume that this was a slow news day, so they found a story and spun it to fit the preconceived perception of photogs. Tom Wolfe pointed out that the media, lacking any imagination, and let's face it, being lazy,will ALWAYS spin a story to fit the conventional wisdom.
As to the photogs: Well, I guess you could say they're obnoxious pervs at first glance, BUT I can see where women's legs flashing across a crosswalk might be a cool shot, and not necessarily pervo. Peter Turnley has a shot like that taken in Paris --who calls him a pervert?
In some ways , the photogs are being criticized for doing something different, unusual , or outside the so-called norm. And this does not go well in America, where despite our purported love of freedom of expression, etc, etc, any behavior outside the "approved" norm makes us nervous.
Let's not forget that a large part of the public has dirty minds (no thanks in large part to media spin--see above). I think of the Wynn Bullock shot of the little girl lying naked in the forest. He said he was shocked at how many people asked him if the girl in the photo was supposed to be raped or murdered--he meant the photo as a symbol of innocence....
And finally, as mentioned above, while people may like street photos, they forget what goes into making them , and that the taking of the photos can be perceived as perverse, intrusive and possibly illegal--for the reasons mentioned above.
All I know is that this story doesn't make it any easier for me, when I'm trying to do street shooting.
