Mainstream media hand over unbroadcast riot footage to cops
fitwatcher | 22.09.2011 16:02 | August Riots | Repression
Due to a court order taken out by the cops, the BBC, ITN and Sky News have handed over unbroadcast video footage to officers investigating the nights of looting and rioting that exploded in major English cities for several nights in August. This is apparently entirely legal - footage doesn't have to be broadcast for the cops to reprimand it.
Consider every corp media lens a FIT lens. No access for the big cameras unless you want it going straight to the cop surveillance dept.
Consider every corp media lens a FIT lens. No access for the big cameras unless you want it going straight to the cop surveillance dept.
fitwatcher
Comments
Hide the following 20 comments
Corp media
22.09.2011 16:42
Anarchist
Bad move...
22.09.2011 18:00
No wonder they are reluctant to hand it over and will only do so with a court order. What happened to journalists protecting their sources? Rioters were certainly a source for their stories here.
anon
Don't forget the so-called 'independent media activists' either
22.09.2011 18:23
Beware though, anyone claiming to be kosher cos they aren't 'corporate media'. They can easily infiltrate and 'document' your activities. Don't trust anyone prepared to photograph or document your actions. Keep your ego at bay too, and resist documenting yourselves and putting it on social networking sites or even here.
See you on the streets and fuck Web 2.0!
logic
help us to help you
22.09.2011 19:27
Anarchist photographer
agreed
23.09.2011 11:15
fw
Disinformation and disruption.
23.09.2011 13:43
So let me get this right.
A statist entity, the BBC, hand over footage it has collected of rioting by demand from a statist entity, the courts, at the behest of a statist entity, the police, and this means, according to you, that all journalists including the independent media, are now targets.
I would imagine that the BBC, the courts and the police, collectively, are very pleased with your comments. In fact I would imagine they consider your comments 'job done'.
I am an independent journalist and consider that anybody that attempts to undermine my work to be an agent of the state, and by default, worthy of documentation. Especially those who define their logic by using words like 'kosher'.
But of course, this is all academic. Those who aim to disrupt and sow disinformation only do so because they have no legitimacy. Dishonesty is the credo of those who have no power.
Independent Journalist.
Ahaaa.
23.09.2011 14:24
That's a bit like saying you don't understand why somebody might call themselves a paramedic, because all they do is drive an ambulance.
I know Indymedia gets exposed to a lot of disruption by the police but jeeeees, this one sounds like he's on work experience from police college!!!!!!
indy-snapper
Independent journalists
23.09.2011 16:43
Kia
@Independent Journalist
23.09.2011 17:09
And what if you get stopped by the police and your camera confiscated as "evidence"?
Or if they come to your house and take your hard drive for "evidence". Are all your images stored encrypted? Are you prepared to go to jail for refusing to hand over the key? Would you hand over images if you got a court order?
Sorry, but like it or not, if the courts are going to compel journalists to hand over their footage, ALL journalists photographing people breaking the law or in the vicinity of lawbreaking will become a target. Even if you are extremely careful and your ideology is the best thing since sliced bread.
The morality of this is irrelevant, people will do it out of basic self-defence against being incriminated.
anon
morality is the issue
23.09.2011 19:43
"There are many independent journalists, with no sense of security culture, who act as if their footage is more important than whether someone will go to prison as a result of it. It's really arrogant and it's really not on."
-- It depends if they are doing something illegal. I mean, if you got someone smashing up a shop and that footage helps to id them, isn't that a good thing?
"How do we distinguish you from a BBC camera person though?"
-- i think all the BBC employees will have ID and would show them if required.
"And what if you get stopped by the police and your camera confiscated as "evidence"? "
-- I don't think this has happened. But I'm sure you'd get the camera back.
"Or if they come to your house and take your hard drive for "evidence". Are all your images stored encrypted? Are you prepared to go to jail for refusing to hand over the key? Would you hand over images if you got a court order?"
-- I think most people would. It would be illegal not to.
"Sorry, but like it or not, if the courts are going to compel journalists to hand over their footage, ALL journalists photographing people breaking the law or in the vicinity of lawbreaking will become a target. Even if you are extremely careful and your ideology is the best thing since sliced bread. "
-- I would imagine that after a few attacks, the reporters would get wise and assist in the getting the attackers caught where possible.
"The morality of this is irrelevant, people will do it out of basic self-defence against being incriminated."
-- It really comes down to a self-defence on defending ourselves against property damage. If a hooded youth starts smashing up my bike, then I have the moral right to defend myself and my property. If they don't want to be incriminated, then don't attack people!
tyrone
Hmmmm.
23.09.2011 19:47
Having been an independent journalist for 12 years in this country and abroad. Believe me, my security culture is certainly far superior than yours. Its been honed to perfection.
"Sorry, but like it or not, if the courts are going to compel journalists to hand over their footage, ALL journalists photographing people breaking the law or in the vicinity of lawbreaking will become a target. Even if you are extremely careful and your ideology is the best thing since sliced bread."
I've been compelled on many occasions over the years by the police to do one thing or another, and on every occasion its all come to nought.
"The morality of this is irrelevant, people will do it out of basic self-defence against being incriminated."
I think people will make up their own minds on this. Your wasting your time!
Independent Journalist.
hold on a minute
24.09.2011 07:38
To be honest, in such a massive surveillance state and with your image clocked by the state a ludicrous number of times every day, and with new technology being introduced to allow a computer to identify you by your face, even if I'm NOT doing something incriminating I don't want some stranger taking and uploading pictures of me. Say you take an entirely non-incriminating pic of someone and 10 minutes later they do something that could put them in prison for a long time. You've documented that person's clothes, proximity, everything.
Examples always help:
That photo went up with full climate camp media exposure within minutes of the event. As you can see, even with everyone attempting to mask up and dress identically, in the heat of the moment identities are revealed and that photo could easily have been used evidentially to prove several people were within that police cordon. Several people were later arrested from within that cordon. I wasn't involved but had I been, I'd have been so fucking livid at the prioritising of a cool action photo being publicised over the legal protection of people sticking their necks out for a cause.
So if you really are up on the security and consider all this then fantastic. But I find that hard to believe, purely because someone that up on their security culture wouldn't react so angrily to people who are frustrated by the lack of decency most indy journos have. You've twice attempted to shout people down for being pissy that indy journos regularly incriminate the people they're supposedly trying to help. If you really were that security conscious I'd expect you to agree with the pissyness. Moreover you're commenting anonymously so it's not like you're defending your personal reputation. You're defending the rep of indy journos in general.
CS
re: Your wasting your time!
24.09.2011 11:35
"Your wasting your time!"
Gawd, I hope you're not a print journalist, with grammar like that!
@tyrone
"It really comes down to a self-defence on defending ourselves against property damage. If a hooded youth starts smashing up my bike, then I have the moral right to defend myself and my property. If they don't want to be incriminated, then don't attack people!"
And you really think someone smashing up your bike will stop when you present them with this argument, and say, "yes, you're quite right, carry on taking photos of me"? No, they are going to try to take your camera off you and run off with it or smash it (though - pro-tip - just smashing it probably won't destroy any existing images).
THAT is what I mean by morality is irrelevant to this point. Obviously morality is important in a wider sense.
Someone whose morality is fine with rioting is almost certainly going to be alright with attacking nosy journalists taking photos of them. I'm not sure how I can explain this point in any simpler terms. I'm making no comment about whether this is right or wrong, just that it will happen.
anon
think it through
25.09.2011 23:24
And this will mean that photographers will hate these people and go out of their way to take photos and identify these scum. If someone smashed my £2000 of kit, i'd smash their face in and then claim back on insurance.
>> THAT is what I mean by morality is irrelevant to this point. Obviously morality is important in a wider sense.
Not irrelevant as you have clearly forgotten the cause & effect. Ie.... the morality means that the smasher will get their head kicked in. Cause and effect.
>> Someone whose morality is fine with rioting is almost certainly going to be alright with attacking nosy journalists taking photos of them.
And someone who are not fine with people who smash people's property up will be alright with taking pictures of scumbags to id them.
>> I'm not sure how I can explain this point in any simpler terms. I'm making no comment about whether this is right or wrong, just that it will happen.
Yes i agree - it will just happen. We will see phototog kicking the shit out of black clad youths.... because most of these anarchists weigh about 9.5stone and have no muscle of them.
Tyrone
Tyrone wins an award
26.09.2011 13:36
You win the moron award for the most revealing statement on IMC UK for some time.
Clap clap
moron patrol
Political activism.
26.09.2011 19:27
Indymedia photographers DO NOT beat people up in the streets, we DO NOT advocate the use of violence and we DO NOT take sides on either the left or the right. We are not usually challenged on the streets accept by those who have an agenda and wish to remain hidden from view, despite claiming they represent the people and the majority view.
The comments appearing after this article have clearly been intended as a veilled threat against Indymedia contributors and for that reason I'm going to identify them as the work of militant Labour Party activists.
Judging by the comments made by union leaders after today's Labour Party conference after Ed Ball's speech, in which a Labour Party activist threatened to call for hospitals to be occupied, it seems clear that the comments following this article are the work of the Labour Party.
IMC
@Tyrone
27.09.2011 17:17
We can speculate as to who will come off worse, but I'm glad you at last see my point.
Remember a lot of rioters are hardened crims rather than the intellectual anarchists you fantasize about...
anon
choosing to be a shrimp or not
28.09.2011 11:15
lol! whatever. Possibly. I think the difference is that the media are doing something that they are lawfully entitled to do, whereas the rioters are not.
"We can speculate as to who will come off worse, but I'm glad you at last see my point. "
Arguments appear to be around the fact that people seem to think that criminals should be allowed to tell law-abiding people what they can and can't do in public. This is of course ridiculous and cannot be tolerated.
"Remember a lot of rioters are hardened crims rather than the intellectual anarchists you fantasize about..."
Civilised society is just an agreement between people on how to behave towards one another. At anytime that can collapse and turn into a punch up or worse. I dont care how "hardened crim" people are, people have a choice of being a cowardly shrimp like that guy in the photo below, or they can stand up to the intimidation and fight back.
My view is that it is the responsibility of every individual to look after themselves. That means many things that all fall under the category of being self sufficient. In this case it means getting down the gym and making sure you can defend yourself when someone decides to break the rules of civilised society and try to stop you doing something you are lawfully entitled to do.
Considering i've put a lot of hardwork into being able to overhead squat my own bodyweight + change, I don't see why I should run away like that shrimp in the photo handing over his clothes, when i can put up a decent fight instead.
tyrone
still failing to understand my point
28.09.2011 12:44
I'm not even discussing morality or right and wrong, I'm saying nothing about whether rioting is right or wrong.
I'm purely making a factual prediction about what will be more likely to happen.
And you can "overhead squat my own bodyweight" all you want but if you are faced with a large gang of people, or someone armed with a knife or a gun, that's not going to help very much. I wouldn't criticise the person in the photo unless you know the full facts of what was going on.
I appreciate you have anarchist ideals like self-sufficiency, but "civilised society" isn't an equal agreement - it's designed by the rich for the rich - you don't often see bankers and politicians locked up for long stretches for their anti-social behaviour.
anon
oh my freakin god
29.09.2011 09:52
harry