Police, Guns, Cameras & The Truth

Lately the Norwegian police union has pushed for all police officers to be armed at all times. Today, as one of few remaining forces in the world, they are only armed when ordered to do so in high risk situations. Fortunately, most senior commanders and politicians have not jumped on the band wagon.

But what has this got to do with photojournalism?

Well there is a case study where armed police, the public and documentary photography/filming meets. On June 15th 2001, during anti EU protests, Swedish police shot three people, nearly killing one of them. As it happened I was there, a young man was shot in the abdomen just a few meters to my right. You can see us in the red circle, Hannes Westberg (protester/victim in grey jacket,black hood) and me (white helmet). Westberg very narrowly escaped death.

It is obviously shocking to see someone get shot under any circumstances, but this incident was shocking on many more levels:
 It was the first time Swedish police had used live ammunition against protesters since 1931. Shot were fired randomly into the crowd. Two of the victims where no where near the police at the time. No police man (or anyone else for that matter) were in such danger that lethal force was required. And the police and prosecution lied about the events.

 All this can perhaps be in part be explained (though not excused) by the events leading up to this, with two days of utter chaos and mayhem in the streets of Gothenburg. Police training and tactics left much to be desired. As the dust settled police and government Prosecutors office compiled video footage, cross cut it, manipulated sequencing and sound, then introduced it as evidence to justify the shootings. Not long after that, Swedish broadcaster SVT program Uppdrag Granskning was able to show the manipulations.

Yet, presumably angered by the wrecking of their town, the public and some of the media largely chose to ignore or forgive their law men for actually fabricating evidence in court. Very disturbing!
To this day the Gothenburg police have expressed no remorse for shooting blindly into the crowd, or the wilful shooting of an unarmed protester.

Later professor Göran du Rées did a research project "THE GUNSHOTS AT VASAPLATSEN", dvelving furter into the police spin and putting the (ab)use of images into a more academic perspective. His project shows in detail the many factors that needs to be taken into account for images to be used as proof, and how easily it can be manipulated. I recommend it for anyone remotely interested in the events in Gothenburg or images - still or moving - as evidence. I think most will agree photojournalism is personal interpretation of events, and one should be vary of its use when presented as 100% accurate facts.

Facts are also in short supply when many police discuss their desire to be armed at all times. Fortunately there are both more senior and more experienced voices, such as the leader of the Norwegian anti terror squad Delta, who says the police should not be armed at all times.

Having photographed demonstrations and troubles around the world for over 20 years I am in no doubt we are better off with an unarmed police force. I have seen fewer police face off and hold their own against more aggressive crowds, without using live ammunition.

There is no reason to think Norwegian police are any better than their Swedish counterparts. Which means they too WILL - without a shadow of doubt - lack training, they will panic, they will over react, they will make mistakes, they will lie about it. And they will fabricate evidence.

I've seen many over reactions by stressed out police officers in Norway over the years, I am so glad they did not have a gun to reach for.

If the images from Gothenburg prove anything, it is how easy access to guns can lead to disaster.  To that end the images serve an important purpose.

Newsletter

Open publication - Free publishing - More photo

Camera Beats Pen

Photojournalism has been pronounced dead many times (I may even have said it myself). But after a few years of doom and gloom I think we can feel a pulse, and it may be getting stronger. Traditional newspapers don't seem to be providing the cure, but healing powers may be coming from elsewhere.
I see signs of life, reading ever more stories on how important visual storytelling is becomming. And you need more than an Instagram account to stand out. You need professionals.

Granted, it is not all independent, editorial photojournalism. Some of it is cleary commercial, dressed up as editorial content. But it is a good sign, not only are the likes of Coca-Cola choosing reportage over classic advertising pictures (they new website is in the form of a magazine) , but the world is growing vary of free but fake hurricane pictures by "citizen journalists". Could this mean a new spring for photographers using the photojournalistic toolbox?

Here are some up beat stories to consider:

If Pen Beats Sword, Camera Beats Pen

Photographers Will Soon Be The Most Valuable People In The News Room
 

Coke Revamps Web Site to Tell Its Story

‘Content is king’ again: why Bill Gates may be right after all

Of course, for a serious photojournalist, doing "branded content" isn't without problems. Even when it pays for your "proper photojournalism", or is for a good cause:

When Interest Creates a Conflict

Today we got the new Felix Features logo from talented graphic designer Anna Maria Pirolt. And we are very happy with the result!

After quite some time of pondering what direction to go, we decided for a retro look which originates from our love of art deco design. We also decided it would be interesting to make it more personal, with wings eluding to my own interest in aviation photography.

Art Deco " is an influential visual arts design style which first appeared in France during the 1920s, flourished internationally during the 30s and 40s", as Wikipedia puts it.  Incidentally this is also the time period we associate with the birth of what is today called "classic photojournalism".

Felix Features is indeed a picture agency founded on classic photojournalism, we represent many great photographers who see themselvs - and photograph - in the light of that tradition. In a world overflowing with hype, -grams,filters and fakes, we don't mind holding firm with some old school photojournalism. And a retro logo.

We hope you like it too.

Omdal skyter budbringeren

Sven Egil Omdal har i Aftenbladet.no en kommentar med noen gode poeng i forhold til hvordan bilder beskriver "virkeligheten", men skyter til en viss grad budbringeren. For selv om fotografene har ansvaret for bildene de tar, så har de sjelden ansvaret for hvilket bilde som faktisk kommer på trykk. Jeg vil tro at de fleste fotografene som fotograferte grekere i naziuniform også fotograferte "med vidvinkel" og fikk med seg menneskene forøvrig (uten uniformer). Men avisene, ikke fotografene, har valgt å publisere de mest dramatiske bildene.

Omdal snakker også om "bilderedaktørene hjemme". Som om det faktisk fantes "bilderedaktører". Omdal burde vite at det knapt finnes  noen som har den tittelen lenger, og enda færre som faktisk har mandat som en en slik tittel skulle tilsi. Selv i våre største aviser er fotoreportasjelederne i stor grad redusert til bildeekspeditører, uten særlig myndighet eller ansvar for hva som faktisk kommer på trykk.

Nedleggelsen/reduksjonen av fotoavdelinger i avisene de siste årene reduserer antall fagfolk i redaksjonene.  Faktum er at de som styrer bildeleggingen av avisene har liten kompetanse eller interesse for fotojournalistikk.

Hvis Omdal vil se på hvilke bilder som velges, bør han se nærmere på de som faktisk styrer butikken.

Famines: only skinny people can report?

Famous reporter Robert Fisk of The Independent has written a commentary on war reporting called "The heroic myth and the uncomfortable truth of war reporting". 

I am always sceptical when someone claims to know the truth, even when it is the herioc and mythical Robert Fisk.

In the commentary he reflects on his chosen profession, his colleugues, and how they operate in a war zone. It seems "after four decades, he feels ambivalent towards his profession". It is easy to agree with one of his points: reporters wearing flak jackets for theatrical purposes on screen is plain silly.

 However Fisk is also suggesting that reporters should not wear flak jackets at all, basically in solidarity with the war victims. The contrast between the protected journalists (we mustn't call them hacks!) and the people they report on is apparently too uncomfortable to watch. I wonder, would Robert Fisk like to stop white, well fed journalists from reporting from famines in Afrika? Only skinny people can report?

Robert Fisk dismisses the notion of journalists  (we can call them journos, that's ok) can suffer any psycological trauma in their work. After all they "can fly home if the going gets too tough, business class with a glass of bubbly in their hands." Perhaps The Independent is overflowing with money and retreats in style when the going gets tough, but it is rarely what reporters do. And certainly not how the reporters in Homs got out of that hell hole. Dismissing Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as if is a condition one choose to develop isn't very scientific, Fisk. Disrespectful to those unfortunate to suffer from it as a result of their work, is what it is.

Fisk commends the Palestinian reporters that brought us the news from Gaza when foreign reporters weren't able to enter. "They did a fine job". Indeed they did! But I am unsure what Fisk is saying with the comparison to Homs, and his reference to "colonialist" practice of foreginers becoming famous for reporting on other peoples' wars. If he is suggesting Western reporters stay home and leave the reporting to the locals, then I think he is forgetting the how much pressure local reporters are under in a war situation. While many are dedicated to bring the news out truthfully, it is a fact that some local reporters will be leaning towards propaganda. Surely more eyes on the ground is a good thing, even if they are Western.

I would easily agree that it often is troublesome when the reporters becomes more important than the story. However I think Robert Fisk greatly exaggerate the "stardom" war reporters enjoy, and how it totally eclipses the situation of the actual victims. How much would the world know and care about Homs, had we not had the drama with the Western reporters? While the returning reporters have been in the spotlight, have they not also been doing a great job of directing attention to the situation in Syria while in that spotlight?

Robert Fisk seems to imply that beacuse British photographer Paul Conroy has been mentioned a lot in the Western media lately he is being elevated, while local vicitms forgotten. Fisk can name many non-Western vicitms, especially colleagues he suspects we don't know the names of. Personally I suspect that if you stopped passers by in the street, most wouldn't be able to name a single war reporter. Not Paul Conroy, not anyone. Perhaps Robert Capa if given the chance to think a bit. But the fixation with war reporters and their status is mainly an in-media obsession. One that Robert Fisk certainly is part of himself. Much like finacial traders will know the names of other successful traders. While ordinary people may be interested in their money, they are not likely to remember much more than their bank's name, let alone the name of anyone working there. 


Robert Fisk remembers the name of his fallen colleague Terry Lloyd. This isn't very unnatural is it? Most people would remember a colleague killed. But Fisk then asks: "who can remember the name of one of the quarter or half a million Iraqis killed as a result of the invasion". This is where it becomes silly. Names are mentioned in newspaper and in TV reports every day, from disasters all over the world, but does Fisk really expect us to memorize the names? Besides, as pointed out elsewhere, people in conflict don't always want to be identified (as was the case in Homs). 

As if to underscore the narcissistic nature of war correspondents Fisk's commentary is illustrated with a picture of... well, yes: Robert Fisk. We won't forget that name so easily.

July 22 RAW

Following the terror attacks on July 22, 2011, in Oslo and on Utøya island the popular response was "more openness, more democracy". It was repeated by the Prime Minister as well. Sadly many people in position have not taken these words to be meant for them.
Since the attacks there has been a debate on the media's coverage as well. In my opinion most Norwegians don't realize just how insulated and sheltered they are in terms of media showing them, or rather not showing them, what happened on July 22. They got a glimpse last week when World Press Photo awarded a prize to a Swedish photographer, showing the full horror of Utøya.
I covered the bombing in Oslo. I have entered some of these pictures into the World Press Photo and Picture of the Year myself. I didn't see or photograph any dead bodies. I probably would have photographed them, if I saw them. I've asked myself a lot of questions regarding what I photographed and how I photographed it. What could I have done better (a lot!)? And what could the press in general have done better? I have some answers but many remain elusive.

All of the pictures I took in the centre of Oslo that day can be seen here. Unedited. No Photoshop. It is my way of saying : more openness!

(Due to a wrongly set time in one of my cameras, they are not in the exact order they were shot. So first there are the pictures from one camera (in the order they were shot), then the next. I've included the last frame prior to the bombing. Don't ask why. Think.)