I will try to distil my thoughts for you.
Journalism is one of societies necessary evils (no offence
intended).
The media is how we find out what is happening around us, for
better or for worse. Mostly for worse, it seems. As as society
we seem to want bad news rather than good. Why that is, I will
leave to sociologists, though I have my own thoughts on it.
As long as journalists stick to reporting, I haven't any
problems with what they do. I may have problems with what they
report on, but thats what they do, they are the messenger.
Having said that, I do have problems with when the media creates
news through direct intervention.
The death of Princess Diana is such a situation, in my mind.
To come back to the original topic, the pictures in question may
well have some journalistic value, and if they were offered to a
journalistic venue, I would have no problems, though the asking
price seems steep.
For me, it still comes back to auctioning off images of a
persons death to the highest bidder for no other reason than
avarice. Since he has taken the eBay route to sell his pictures,
I can only presume that he has eschewed the news media because
he thinks he can do better selling elsewhere.
Perhaps I am not making a lot of sense, but the whole thing
stirs up bad emotions for me, and that is difficult to put into
words.
William Robb
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: April 27, 2001 12:02 AM
Subject: Re[6]: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
> Hi,
>
> it isn't _about_ journalism. Journalism comes into it because
that's
> the main situation where photographers (try to) make money out
of
> misfortune*.
>
> So when people condemn a photographer for trying to make money
out of
> somebody else's misfortune I think we're entitled to ask why
they
> condemn it in one case but not in other very similar cases,
such as the
> Concorde crash.
>
> I'm not trying to score points or win an argument; I'm
genuinely
> interested in trying to find out why people treat such cases
> differently, because the only differences I see are the
relative
> anonymity of the Concorde victims, and the lack of a fig-leaf
over the
> Earnhardt photographer's greed.
>
> ---
>
> Bob
>
> *I'm not suggesting that is the only motive or the primary
motive for
> journalists of course, but it is a necessary part of
journalism.
>
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Friday, April 27, 2001, 12:20:17 AM, you wrote:
>
> > Whatever, Bob.
> > Without wanting to come across like Mafud:
> > 1) At what point did this thread become about journalism?
Your
> > argument is built around a journalism strawman.
> > 2) What this thread started out as (at least for me) was a
> > distaste for someone trying to make 50 grand (the amount
isn't
> > really germaine) off of someones misfortune. No journalistic
> > integrity is involved in an eBay auction.
> > 3) For the record, I am not a motorsport follower, and had
not
> > heard of Dale Earnhardt(?) prior to his untimely demise.
> > 4) This is not about journalism, it is about greed.
> > William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
