Is it wrong that I feel the lurking hordes of cameramen, desperate for any kind of action, come across as more sinister than some old deranged man swinging his jacket at them, then promptly being detained by police?
+somethingtowatch Depends. If that's what the cameramen are doing maybe, but then again it's all intention. The intention of the camera men is to document events and therefor inform the community through media. The intent of a person who attacks someone is to harm.
+Kenji Wardenclyffe if you watch protests these days (which it seems like you are often a around) you will see that the media/cameramen are almost outnumbering the violent participants. Rushing to surround the slightest altercation or scuffle. Suddenly one undereducated person is thrust in the spotlight to offer up a sound bite of the 'violent out of control hordes' Like desperate paparazzi tying to get an undignified picture of a celebrity the cameraman looks for a menacing policeman or and angry protestor. They know the narrative the papers and TV are after and will pay money for and are desperate to capture anything that may resemble some thing that may be portrayed as hateful.
+somethingtowatch Mobs of cameramen are kinda what happens when you have two politically opposite groups warring on the streets. It's public interest, and a consequence of invoking the power of free speech; people tend to be interested in what is being said, and people will be there documenting it. It is a little contradictory to exercise free speech so people will listen and then lash out at a person documenting it.
+somethingtowatch Some may do it for those reasons but I cannot speak for anyone other than myself. The people I photograph with tend to do it for the love of photography, as do I myself. It's my passion and I love capturing raw emotion and protests are a great place to get people expressing themselves. I've probably met one photographer in my entire history as a freelancer who does it to capture violence and as such they only attend ones which might have the potential to go that way - I tend to just go when I know I'll get a good expressive photo. Basically I feel I just want to show people what's going on around them in the world. When it comes to journalistic narratives, the photographers aren't really part of anything like that in my opinion - the photographers simply take the photos, the papers buy them, and the editor has the final say in what direction the piece takes. A photographer will usually take massive amounts of photos, many of which do not include anything angry or violent. The majority of the photos we take as photojournalists aren't of a violent or angry nature. My own personal opinion is that journalism should be completely unbiased and simply about showing events as they unfolded - and that's what I try to do. But I understand your concerns, I just don't think that what you say is actually going on in the manner you say it is. Basically I'm just saying photojournalists are just there to document what's going on around them as they usually have an interest in human behavior or societal issues.
![LAVROV's interview with Tucker CARLSON 😁 [Parody]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mbMemqc-QEk/mqdefault.jpg)
Identifying fascists is easynas helll Just look for the group taking a steaming dump on free speach. Found them yet?
oh look there's Rick Sanchez
Is it wrong that I feel the lurking hordes of cameramen, desperate for any kind of action, come across as more sinister than some old deranged man swinging his jacket at them, then promptly being detained by police?
+somethingtowatch Depends. If that's what the cameramen are doing maybe, but then again it's all intention. The intention of the camera men is to document events and therefor inform the community through media. The intent of a person who attacks someone is to harm.
+Kenji Wardenclyffe if you watch protests these days (which it seems like you are often a around) you will see that the media/cameramen are almost outnumbering the violent participants. Rushing to surround the slightest altercation or scuffle. Suddenly one undereducated person is thrust in the spotlight to offer up a sound bite of the 'violent out of control hordes'
Like desperate paparazzi tying to get an undignified picture of a celebrity the cameraman looks for a menacing policeman or and angry protestor. They know the narrative the papers and TV are after and will pay money for and are desperate to capture anything that may resemble some thing that may be portrayed as hateful.
+somethingtowatch Mobs of cameramen are kinda what happens when you have two politically opposite groups warring on the streets. It's public interest, and a consequence of invoking the power of free speech; people tend to be interested in what is being said, and people will be there documenting it.
It is a little contradictory to exercise free speech so people will listen and then lash out at a person documenting it.
+somethingtowatch Some may do it for those reasons but I cannot speak for anyone other than myself. The people I photograph with tend to do it for the love of photography, as do I myself. It's my passion and I love capturing raw emotion and protests are a great place to get people expressing themselves.
I've probably met one photographer in my entire history as a freelancer who does it to capture violence and as such they only attend ones which might have the potential to go that way - I tend to just go when I know I'll get a good expressive photo.
Basically I feel I just want to show people what's going on around them in the world.
When it comes to journalistic narratives, the photographers aren't really part of anything like that in my opinion - the photographers simply take the photos, the papers buy them, and the editor has the final say in what direction the piece takes. A photographer will usually take massive amounts of photos, many of which do not include anything angry or violent. The majority of the photos we take as photojournalists aren't of a violent or angry nature.
My own personal opinion is that journalism should be completely unbiased and simply about showing events as they unfolded - and that's what I try to do.
But I understand your concerns, I just don't think that what you say is actually going on in the manner you say it is.
Basically I'm just saying photojournalists are just there to document what's going on around them as they usually have an interest in human behavior or societal issues.