The requirement was swiftly panned by the journalism advocacy group Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, which called it “an unreasonable expectation” for a journalist to obtain a waiver in a breaking news situation.
Metrolinx, the Ontario government agency that runs Union Station, is now reviewing the policy, which does not apply to citizen riders but has been on the books for decades.
Star reporter Alex Consiglio took pictures of an injured transit officer early Sunday morning following an incident on a GO Train platform. He said he was told to leave the area, did so, and took more pictures outside of the officer being taken by stretcher to an ambulance. Consiglio was then arrested, handcuffed and ticketed for trespassing, and released at the scene.
According to the ticket, the alleged offence was engaging in a “prohibited activity on premises.”
The Star asked John Lehmann, a Vancouver-based photojournalist and president of the News Photographers Association of Canada, for his take on the rule in this edited email exchange.
It turns out Metrolinx allows casual photography by riders but requires commercial photographers, which they say includes journalists, to get permission to shoot and film there. I can see a case for commercial purposes, but for journalism?
Working photojournalists should never be confused with commercial photographers because their images are used for completely different purposes. Commercial images are used to endorse products and for marketing purposes whereas photojournalism has a documentary function. It is used to inform and report on a community and becomes part of the historical record of that community.
For Metrolinx to suggest photojournalism is a commercial enterprise demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what journalism is, the role it plays and why it’s necessary in our society.
Are there similar examples of this sort of policy that come to mind?
An obvious example is the censorship conducted by the communist Chinese government of all domestic, foreign and social media. We do not have such restrictions here in Canada. Freedom of the press is one of the keystones of our democracy. When, in the case of photojournalism, a corporation like Metrolinx decides they are the gatekeepers of the public interest, where does it end? That has to be at least questioned and challenged by our organization.
A spokesperson for Metrolinx framed this, in part, as a liability issue. “If you’re taking pictures in the official capacity of your job (journalist) that’s where there is a liability issue,” the spokesperson explained to one of our reporters. “If people are using their cellphones and taking pictures or even using their cameras to take tourist shots there isn’t that kind of an issue because it’s not in an official capacity.” In other words, if you’re on the job as a journalist, you have to get a waiver. What do you make of that? I mean, when is a journalist ever not on the job?
We interpret this as Metrolinx doesn’t forbid the taking of pictures but they want to approve any images that may be used by the media. What they are forgetting is one single Twitter user could have more followers than the Toronto Star has readers, so where do they draw the line? When are you a journalist and when are you a tourist?
The News Photographers Association of Canada’s position is that as journalists, we are not obligated to sign any waivers to do our job in a public place in any Canadian community. The act of making pictures is not illegal. Let me repeat that: there’s absolutely no law against taking photographs in Canada. Yes, there are things that you can do while making a photograph that are illegal, like stalking or trespassing. But taking a photograph in Canada is not against the law. Period.
It feels like the barring of professional journalists from documenting events in certain locations is on the rise in North America. Is it?
Absolutely. This infringement of the public’s right to know is becoming a disturbing trend under the banner of “protecting” citizens from terrorism, which has been happening since 9/11. We understand that police need to control a scene and set a perimeter at a breaking news event. But professional journalists are being ordered further and further away from such events. It begs the question: is this to limit media access and avoid close-up examination of what the police are doing?
Police and other government and corporate officials present at breaking news scenes need to understand their personal concerns and fears are irrelevant to the situation and the rule of law. It is not their responsibility to determine what journalists may or may not photograph.
Q. Controlling the making of images and video in the age of ubiquitous smartphones seems a near impossible thing to do. In a democracy such as ours, are there any good reasons left for barring photography, particularly in a breaking news situation?
No, and it’s unrealistic to expect this in an age of digital imagery. A recent high-profile example of this is the amateur video footage of the tasering and death of Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver International Airport by several RCMP members. Without this video footage, which the RCMP had originally confiscated, we would never have known the awful details of this man’s death. Thankfully, this was not the case and the result has been the RCMP examining their use of tasers and how they deal with these types of situations.
Even though it’s a common tactic for the police to tell unwitting members of the public and the media they cannot take photos, the News Photographers Association of Canada deems this to be a form of censorship and will continue to fight those who would impose such restrictions on us as journalists.
Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Jim Rankin
No comments:
Post a Comment