Walt wrote: >I've never been a fan of "zero tolerance" policies, as they tend to >absolve people in positions of authority of any accountability for >making stupid decisions. "Just following orders . . ." and all that. > >That said, in this kind of situation, I can see where the penalty is >plausibly appropriate, if only for discouraging would-be AP >photojournalists from thinking they're a little more clever than the >last guy who got busted. It's not that I have no sympathy for Conteras; >it is a pretty raw deal. But, at the same time, I can understand where >the AP's photo editors might chafe at the notion that a photographer >would take it upon himself to sneak one past them. Where Conteras >asserts that he thought it might be a distracting element for consumers, >the editors were probably suspicious that he thought it would be a >distracting element to them.
This issue isn't about the photographer it's about AP and it's relationship with news agencies (who buy their photos) and the public. I agree that the treatment of the photographer is harsh, possibly even too harsh. I wouldn't be surprised if some people at AP think so as well. But the market for news photography is perilously thin already and AP can't afford to sacrifice a milligram of credibility. They believe that they have be able to give their photo buyers an iron clad guarantee that every photo they see is unaltered. Without that their complete business model is screwed. So they'll throw one photographer under the bus to protect their business. It sucks for the photographer but I'd probably do the same thing if I were in charge of AP. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
