The quote is down a ways in the article about Forest Service requiring permits for photojournalists.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...permitxml.html
The quote is down a ways in the article about Forest Service requiring permits for photojournalists.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...permitxml.html
Let the damn new folks squirm. Even here in the city they have to obey certain laws so they don't get in other people's way or themselves cause a hazard to emergency responders. If they just want to do a private documentary they can use small equipment and just term it a personal art project, whether it allegedly has
social relevance or not, just like we do. There are all kinds of controversies out there, like climbers turning natural sandstone arches into giant swing and bunji jumps. That's all I need - hike into some public space to see rope burns all over the rocks and natural features turned into some climbing gym. ... Same thing with film crews. And there's nothing more annoying than hiking into some really pristine wilderness area where even a fire pit or footprint is nonexistent, just to have some twin engine Otter come buzzing over your head for an hour with a filmmaker in it. It's happened to me. I don't want to cross the line into politics here. So I'll just stop at the point of saying some of us have a right to solitude and peace of mind too. The journalists can follow the rules, just like the rest of us have to.
Drew, "The journalists can follow the rules, just like the rest of us have to."
Did you bother to read the article? If you did, you must have missed the part about the local forest service rangers applying "the rules" in an arbitrary way. You might have also noticed, that the film crew was using small gear similar to still photographers. No helicopters. No rock climbers. No "news at 11" camera crews getting in the way of fire trucks. It's like you read a completely different article than the one I posted.
One problem with these guys is their definition of 'commercial' is entirely at the whim of the moment.
A tripod? You might be 'commercial'.
Interchangeable lens SLR? You might be 'commercial'.
After all, when you have a run-in and don't have video of what really happened, who will the Federal Judge believe?
No difference. They were violating known rules. If the journalists don't like the manner these rules might apply to less intrusive newer methods, they should address
them at the appropriate hearings or feedback opportunities, or contact the relevant officials. They've got the bully pulpit and are whining all the time anyway. But as
more and more documentary work gets done by DLSR's and even smaller devices, some revision of the rules might be appropriate. And if it's a case of field employees simply not understanding the rules themselves, they do have supervisors. I grew up in a major Natl Forest, immediately adjacent to three Natl Parks and seven official Wilderness areas, plus BLM, and have seen it all. And yes, there are a certain number of dummies in the field.
Wille .... how come I can take a over a thousand backpack trips in my life in Fed jurisdictions, and gosh knows how much road travel over the West and never get
hassled about what kind of camera I use? No, I don't set them up on Freeways, where it's dangerous and illegal, or try to invade private property with them. The only places I've even gotten flack on public lands were in the vicinity of Polygamous cults where their own police or Forest Service officers were suspicious that I was an FBI agent mapping the area with that big tripod. I was also kidnapped once on BLM land by a doty old rancher and his helpers who simply didn't believe in the Fed Govt and assumed squatter's rights on anything their cattle wandered onto. But those are completely different scenarios. We pay taxes and fees to use certain federal lands, why shouldn't film crews? If they don't like it, then let them lobby or appeal to revise the rules. Otherwise, it just a matter of supervision and getting field employees up to speed.
... So Brian, according to this article, if I called myself a Journalist, I should just automatically have the right to be exempt from the same Wilderness Permit process that everyone else is subject to, including ordinary photographers? I can just trample anything anywhere I wish? Just so much whining as far as I'm concerned. Too
bad. Some of these journalists need to grow up.
Well, AA did get a ticket at Point Lobos for setting his camera up off the path...or so the story goes.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Drew, once again I would recommend reading the article. Let me point out a key paragraph:
“We had to convince them our stories would be in keeping with their interpretation of the values of wilderness,” said Ron Pisaneschi, general manager of Idaho Public Television. “We got the permits, but now we’re saying, ‘Enough.’ That’s not right. Our role is not to be a PR office for the Forest Service. It’s to cover stories how we see fit.”
I think their complaint is regarding this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."--1st amendment of the US constitution (underlining is mine)
I can't find anywhere in the article that says the media thinks they should be exempt from permit processes everyone else is subject to. Can you?
Originally Posted by Brian Sims
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks