I've been reading about how increasingly members of the public because of camera phones which can also record video and digital cameras, have become pseudo photo journalists and are sending in pictures of stars/disastars to news agencies. Have you ever contributed to a news story in this way? would you?

I think its an interesting phenomenon how the public are recording events and news broadcasters are using their footage/photos. what are your thoughts?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/h...522014.stm
.....
[Edited 3/16/06 7:21am]

"Have you taken a picture or filmed some video on your phone or digital camera that tells the story?"

heres a link from BBC asking for photos/stories.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/h...417370.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/h...780295.stm

...
[Edited 3/16/06 4:42am]

First...

2the9s said:

I'm sending that picture of you and your rash into the BBC.

LleeLlee said:

No you aren't.

2the9s said:

I've already sent it, they said they cant publish it as it will frighten the readers. shame

any other comments apart from 2the9s oh so profound and earth shatteringly interesting ones?

LleeLlee said:

I saved this thread, chica.


Allelujah!

LleeLlee said:

i'm sure they can cover his face

2the9s said:

you are crossing boundaries i never knew i had

IstenSzek said:

I suggested that, but they said it wasnt the face that was the problem

LleeLlee said:

if not the face, what was?

IstenSzek said:

The area of "concern" should be treated 3 times a day they said.

would you share pictures/video of events?

.....
[Edited 3/16/06 5:29am]

The camera on my phone takes fuzzy pictures. So no, I porbably wouldn't share them.

CarrieMpls said:

that is a problem, I was interested in this because it seems to be on the increase, but with the technology available to us i guess it was inevitable.

LleeLlee said:

my new phone takes videos and has a 1.2 megapixel camera. not bad for a phone. i'm ready for journalism now! too bad nothing ever happens around here.

fantasyislander said:

my phone has 2 megapixels

..
[Edited 3/16/06 5:58am]

LleeLlee said:

i think i would share pictures of something funny or
lightweight, but never something shocking or morally
corrupt that would expose someone in a bad light.

especially accident pics or clips, although i would
not even dream of making them.

stuff like the 9/11 footage, perhaps, because that'd
be in national interest to be studied and such but a
normal accident, no way.

fantasyislander said:

IstenSzek said:

I was thinking about the ethical implications too, I couldnt see myself taking pictures of accidents at all. But events of national concern as you said, and ones which inform rather than for shock value, perhaps. I guess you just have to judge the situation as it happens.

i don't participate. the only cellphone i have is for my car.

but the privacy issue is going to be more and more intense. does person A have the right to photographs, AND publish pics of person B who has not given their consent?

XxAxX said:

Im not sure about privacy issues and publishing pictures without consent, but journalists often do it. I think if the person is in a public place they can do it.

The flipside is that i think eye witness accounts of events can provide a more immediate picture, as they are there when it happens, there are some examples in the links i posted..

I should state, I can take videos too.

But I don't.

LleeLlee said:

in the US the law is kinda vague. a person in a public place has no expectation of privacy. pretty straightforward. BUT what about a person at a private party in someone else's home? there are grey areas that could be problematic

XxAxX said:

I think in this case the newspaper decides if the picture is of national/public interest, maybe? and if it is authentic, but the kate moss pictures for example were not in the national interest but they were still published. She was in a recording studio, a private place. However, It sold newspapers and ultimately that is the aim, especially for tabloids.

...
[Edited 3/16/06 6:27am]

LleeLlee said:

in the US celebrities have less protection because they are 'public figures'. maybe the same in britain?

XxAxX said:

it's the same here, the law is different for young children of celebrities though, they have more protection.

"When David Otway took his digital camera with him on a flight from Stansted to Ireland on Sunday, he had no idea his pictures would soon be published across the world.
But then Dr Otway had not realised as he boarded his plane that he would be flying near one of the largest fires in Europe since 1945.

His dramatic images of the massive blaze at the Buncefield oil depot in Hertfordshire were just some of the photographs taken by members of the public and used by news outlets, including the BBC.

His instincts highlight a rising trend in which ordinary people are using digital cameras or mobile phones to capture events, often beating professional journalists."

i guess i'm old school. the fact that anyone anywhere can capture my image and use it however they like bugs me. the idea that implanted tracking chips, for personal and medical reasons, are being urged on citizens as a 'good idea' bugs me. it bugs me that newer clothing items are sold complete with scan-able strips. i don't want to live in a world that can scan me when i walk by and instantly obtain my medical and personal data and shopping preferences

i think this world is coming though.
[Edited 3/16/06 6:41am]