Last year's Heathrow 'Camp for Climate Action' annoyed press considerably by restricting access to what was, after all, land that the occupiers did not own and had no legal rights over. In an attempt, presumably, to curtail potentially hostile coverage by the evil right-wing MSM, the organisers modelled their press policy on Kim Jong-il and turned the field into a little bit of Pyongang. For sure, Government and BAA are guilty of media manipulation and are bang-to-rights serial fibbers where LHR, traffic and emissions are concerned, but three wrongs don't make a right.
If this is a serious environmental debate - and as someone who lives on this planet and under the flightpath I certainly think it should be - then facts rather than propaganda are what matters, and if they're inconvenient to someone that's just tough shit. Any obstruction of open debate is self-defeating and likely to engender an attitude that all parties are posturing, vested-interested liars so best disregarded completely.
This is possibly not the message Camp for Climate Action intended to convey. I know of a number of journalists, who whilst sympathetic to the aims boycotted the event because they considered Camp for Climate Action's media policies destructive and unsustainable and their emissions on access toxic. This is what is known in the tabloids as an 'own goal'. It's clearly ridiculous to prevent coverage of a supposedly awareness-raising event because you're worried the Mail will portray you as a bunch of bolshie workshy anarchist hippy troublemakers. Unless of course that's what you are.
However it seems Climate Action still haven't learned that PR ineptitude comparable with npower's attempts to suppress the press does not help your cause. John Toner of the NUJ has now written the following open letter regarding this year's planned camp.
The Media Team 25.07.08
The Camp for Climate Action
Dear Media Team,Last year I wrote to you raising our concerns over your restrictions on media access to your Climate Camp at Heathrow Airport.
I am writing to you again, at the request of many of our members, to protest at your arrangements for this year’s Camp at Kingsnorth.
In a similar way to last year’s procedures, you intend to restrict the media to “facilitated tours” of the camp between 11am and 1pm. To limit access in this way severely hampers the ability of the media to provide objective and accurate coverage.
You then go on to state that journalists will be permitted to take part in the camp outside the two-hour tour, provided they sign a code of conduct. You might be aware that journalists are already governed by codes of conduct, including that of the NUJ, which you can read here
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=174
We consider it unacceptable that you should seek to control journalists in this way.
You also intend to issue a “press badge” showing name and affiliation. You should be aware that professional journalists will be able to identify themselves by producing their National Press Card. Many freelance journalists will not have any affiliation, as they are not working on behalf of any particular media company.
As an organisation that espouses openness and transparency, you risk accusations of hypocrisy if you follow such procedures restricting the media.
It is not too late to change this. Would you please reconsider your media access policy while there is still time?
Yours sincerely,John Toner
Freelance Organiser
National Union of Journalists
Personally I'll be staying well away from the Camp, just as I did last year, and I am a paid-up hippy troublemaker.
Photorights admin.
Dear EmalineB,
You should consider a career as a Daily Mail leader writer.
I thought I'd been fairly clear and careful in what I wrote, but unfortunately your head is so filled with stereotypes it produced nothing but a heap of steaming adjectives.
Since you've decided to go ad hominem on my ass without knowing the first thing about me, actually my interest in this sort of stuff is lifelong, personal and political, and would actually be sympathetic were it not for the photography issue we're discussing here. Your accusations are formulaic Indymedia chaff based on wrong assumptions. I'm about as detached from the loathsome MSM gravytrain [tm] as it's possible to be and have the overdraft to prove it. Thanks for asking.
So I can't imagine why you think I have any grapes to be sour about. I already explained that I have little personal interest in photographing this camp. To reiterate:
What I do have an interest in is the issues this Photorights site acts as a community for.
The remit of this site is as it says 'PhotoRights.org exists to document and record the actions of those who through lack of comprehension, bone-headed officiousness, vested interest or malice, wish to contain and control photography. We invite participation from all UK amateur and professional photographers and anyone else who values photographic liberty.'
Most of this site is preoccupied with attempts by police, private security, corporate interests and landowners to control photography to suit themselves. Often this involves making up imaginary laws, or exceeding authority, stupid policies or just plain bullying.
I'd be interested to know whether you think it's OK for them to do it, their reasons are often even better than yours.
I am arguing with you here because you persist in believing you have an entitlement to privacy at an open, highly public event. YOU DO NOT, not morally nor in law, nor even in commonsense. This is the same oppressive made-up bollocks we get on a daily basis from the authorities and other axe-grinders.
If you want privacy, do it in private and this problem would cease to exist. Of course you can't because you actually want to do it publically and you want the publicity, but you want it on your terms.
I hope you get your wish and no photographers turn up to 'interfere'. Of course there is the downside that the police may then feel much more comfortable about harassing, arresting and kicking the shit out of you, safe from photojournalists trying to violate their 'privacy'. Maybe then you'll figure out why other peoples' freedoms are just as valuable as your own.
Photorights admin
It's clear that you have utterly missed the point of what the camp is all about and your verbose histrionics do nothing to disguise a nasty old case of sour grapes. The camp is far more than just a 'public demo' photo opportunity for you to sell on for public consumption. Your arrogant view of the camp as being just a bunch of people illegally in a field for the benefit of your camera has sadly blinded you to the birthing of an inspiringly autonomous, decentralised movement where people from all walks of life are exchanging skills and making connections that feed back into countless projects and initiatives to de-carbonise life outside the camp, and spawning no less than seven international camps this year. A lot of which may not have had the chance to happen if everyone had to deal with constant bothering by lenses.
You laughably speak of trust and integrity and in the same breath bemoan the nanny-ism of being asked to abide by rules of conduct. Are you saying all journalists act with trust and integrity? In what imaginary place is this? The same magical place where just being a card carrying member of the press will give you free access to wherever you please, at a time of your choosing? Could you walk into Kingsnorth right now just by waiving your press card at them?
The camp understands that media outlets will publish what they like no matter what kind of access they have. As you yourself say we can only hope to 'persuade, explain and politely decline', which we do so via a policy agreed by consensus. This policy, a summary of which you can read here - http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/404585.html clearly states that journalist are welcome to attend and the camp will do it's best to provide journalists with the material they need, but we politely decline being photographed, filmed and recorded 24 hours a day. Being camped in a field, illegally or not, doesn't waive our right to say 'no thanks' to having our picture taken.
It is overimaginative paranoia to associate the camp media policy with the propaganda machinations of the third reich, and quite offensive too. The media policy has very little to do with controlling the image of the camp and everything to do with allowing camp life to unfold without the distraction and interruption of countless lenses trained on every move.
Thank you for your kind offer to stay away this year, because everyone at the camp will be far too busy working on the camp's four aims of sustainability, education, movement building and direct action to deal with one individual's narrow-minded, self-important dramatics.
I believe The NUJ does expend some time and energy trying to counter insane rights grabs and restrictions from all quarters - from sporting bodies through publishers to Robbie Williams.
That is doesn't get far most of the time has a lot to do with the fact that Getty and other agencies have sewn up access for themselves, and that photographers and publications are seldom prepared to boycott control-freak clubs. The recent Indian Premier League (cricket) and last year's Rugby megalomania got deflected by concerted resistance. This might not often be possible but the NUJ doesn't stand much chance of tackling any of this control freakery without support.
I would be pleased to see more clubs and sporting bodies named and shamed here at CopyrightAction as a start, of course.
Photorights admin
There's not a simple answer to that. It's both and more besides. As a political campaign aimed at promoting action over climate change, would you not expect and hope for widespread media interest and exposure? Given the vast amount of coverage now expended on climate, resource and energy issues, you'd have to be astonishingly naive not to expect massive interest. Given the pre-announced intention of activists to participate in direct action, you can hardly be suprised when as many journo's as cops turn up. It is news, and you've announced your intention to make news.
The dilemma comes with the territory you've chosen to publically stand upon.
30 years ago green issues were the marginal, stigmatised prerogative of supposed oddballs. It was possible for the activists of the 1970's to meet and be completely ignored because few people had any interest and a majority thought they were bonkers. Now millions are worried about the unsustainable future, rising fuel and food prices, sea levels, economic and climate instability, nuclear risks.
You have a right to privacy when you do things in private, just like anyone else. If you want a private event, do it in private. But setting up a well-publicised open-invitation camp and then demanding privacy, or control of your message or image, is little different from celebs whingeing about paparazzi hosing them down as they stagger out of a nightclub pissed with their hair on fire. Whilst they were building their success, they'd do anything to get noticed. Once they have it, some want total control, they want to impose conditions and restrictions, they want to look good despite themselves.
This never works, it just looks arrogant. If you take a position, you become a hero for some and a target for others, and you can't choose or dictate what anyone thinks. All you can do is persuade, explain, and politely decline. Nobody who is in that camp should be under any illusion they are an eco-ambassador. If that makes them uncomfortable, they should stay at home, not try to dictate the behaviour of others.
I'm not asking for anything, just pointing out the unintended consequences of imagining you can push the river in your favour.
Photorights admin
I'd completely agree that photographers are the marginalised minority within the NUJ, and share your exasperation. But actually JT is not an appropriate target, he's got a solid track record of being responsive and active where photographers are concerned. The recent DGS election campaign aired this issue and much of his support came from photographers. Unfortunately he lost.
Photorights admin
As far as I am aware Camp for Climate Action have not made public this year's media guidelines. Last year's are below. If this year's are substantially different someone had better tell John Toner.
MAINSTREAM MEDIA ON SITE
MEDIA HOUR
Media wanting access to the camp will be invited to come on site between 11 AM and 12 noon. All visits will be over and journalists off site by 1 PM at the latest. Journalists will be given a tour of the site, accompanied at all times by two (or more) members of the media team, who will carry a flag to make the journalists/photographers identifiable. Journalists will be required to stick with the tour and will not be allowed to go into marquees or meetings and workshops unless invited at the agreement of all participants.
There will be no journalists on site on Saturday, Sunday, or Monday. This action period will be covered by a separate media strategy. The media hour will occur at the media team’s discretion, if it seems appropriate, on the final Tuesday.
Journalists will be encouraged to book in advance. Some journalists will not be allowed on site (eg. those with a previous record of hostile coverage of the camp/other activism). The decision to not allow these journalists on site will be made on a case by case basis – anyone involved in the camp is welcome to suggest names journalists to “black-list”.
GRANTING SYMPATHETIC JOURNALISTS LONGER ACCESS
We propose that up to three sympathetic journalists be given longer access to the site, up to a maximum of two days and two nights, which must end by Friday. These journalists will be from the print press or radio, not TV. They must have a proven track record of good coverage of social issues, preferably of protests/campaigns, and must present a clear plan of what they intend to produce. They will have a face-to-face meeting with one or more members of the media team before their stay on site.
These journalists will stay in neighbourhoods and be encouraged to participate in camp life as would any other participant. They will be buddied up with someone from their neighbourhood, will facilitate the journalist’s stay, supported by the media team. The journalists will be asked to wear their press pass at all times, and to introduce themselves as a journalist.
We propose that these journalists have access to neighbourhood and other communal spaces, workshop spaces and site wide meetings. For any other spaces a request will need to be made.
CAMP PHOTOGRAPHERS
We propose to have two camp photographers on site throughout the week, who will ensure that the camp is well documented. There are three criteria for choosing photographers: a) personally known and trusted by members of the camp collective, b) track record of covering activist events, c) good links to mainstream media.
At the end of each day, the photographers and members of the media team will jointly select/vet photos to upload to the website.
The photographers will give the photos for free to the camp to be used in perpetuity by the camp, and the photos will be copyleft (ie. freely available to not-for-profit organisations/magazines/etc.) However, if essential, the photographers will have the option to sell photos to profit-making press outlets.
CAMERAS ON SITE
Anyone taking photos or video on site is asked to be sensitive to others. Please ask permission if appropriate, and do not take photos in sensitive areas, eg. the medic tent. Please be aware that some people are wary of cameras and respect their desire not to be photographed. Any difficulties surrounding cameras on site should be dealt with amongst those involved, or via the Tranquillity team if necessary, and not the Media team.
As the significantly left-wing photographer Sion Touhig wrote last year 'There are nuclear installations in Iran with more openness than this...'
George Monbiot, the activist and eco-journalist said of last year's camp : 'The media strategy was hopeless: sympathetic journalists were excluded, while unsympathetic journalists went undercover and stayed in the camp for as long as they wanted. But in other respects it was better organised, more democratic and more disciplined than any I have seen before.' So it didn't even achieve what was intended as far as media management was concerned.
This is a rather repugnant aspect of media nowadays, the sheer numbers who will turn out to cover a story. As a photographer I find it depressing; I'm not in the slightest bit interested in making the same photos as 100 other people, especially when managed into a 'photo opportunity', an oxymoron if ever there was one. Even if I was, as an independent freelance, I'd have close to zero chance of getting them published, I'm a tiny corner shop in markets dominated by global media supermarlkets. But, that's how it is, and if you want to stage an event to reach the public and get them thinking about climate and carbon, then being overrun by press is a success. That's the devil you've chosen to dance with. If you want to just go and camp in a field for a few days and hold workshops untroubled by the media circus, keep quiet about it.
Pure wishful thinking, and not even legally correct. This is a public demo, an activist event with an agenda of attracting public interest and heightening awareness of issues. It is on a par with Big Brother, a spectacle which invites press interest and vicarious public ogling. You have some entitlement to privacy in your tent, or on the bog, but none whatsoever in an occupied field that belongs to someone else that you've grabbed to make a public, political statement. Which is not, of course, to say that I defend intrusive press coverage at all, but it's going to happen because you cannot control the greedy meejah monster. Nobody can, not corporations nor governments, though they try.
Personally, yes, absolutely. The tendency for people to regard photographers as their own personal Leni Riefenstahl is enormously destructive of personal freedom of expression and diversity of viewpoint, something I am sure you deplore. Photographers get this from all sides. Everybody wants photographers around when they see some personal promotional benefit and wants them excluded or prevented when they think it might be inconvenient or critical. And of course editors have an angle too. I long ago got heartily sick of covering demo's because far too often demonstrators assumed I was a lackey of the right-wing press or an undercover cop, whilst police assume your main interest is portaying them as state thugs. It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that photographers might have some integrity and a commitment is to honestly record events for history (and note I say 'honestly', not 'objectively' : you cannot erase personal beliefs from journalism but you must reject lies).
This actually matters. Take Holocaust denial as a lever of rehabilitation used by the NF and BNP. Without photographs of Belsen, Auschwitz, Treblinka the David Irvings of this world would have had a free run at an obscene revisionism. Take Bhopal or Chernobyl and how the film and photos of victims gainsay constrain the well-heeled revisionism of corporate interests. Take Abu Ghrai photos as a supplementary truth to the output of embedded journalists.
Take even the 1m march against war in Iraq, if it hadn't been reported Blair would likely have claimed only 2,000 people turned up. It fatally wounded this government, they have never recovered.
We live in a world absolutely dominated by spin, mostly financed by well-heeled corporates and political interests. The oil companies, chemical companies, BAA, airlines, car manufacturers all expend huge amounts on PR and lobbying. The antidote to that is not opposite spin and manipulation, but openness. Truth has a way of floating to the top of all the crap, eventually. Of course you'll get rotten, poisonous, slanted coverage as well, c/o opportunist arseholes, but arseholes are just a price of freedom. It's better than unfreedom.
This is really just a matter of trust and integrity. There is very little of either around these days, and it's just so goddam UK nany state to try and prohibit people from behaving badly by coming up with infantile rules. I'll just point out that at no point in history has this actually worked : laws against crime have not eliminated crime, banning drugs has not eliminated drug use. Yes, a good portion of the tabloid press behave like ADHD 2-year olds. So let them get on with it. Trust the people as a whole to have a bit of sense, else you're just recycling today's toxins into the better world you hope to create tomorrow.
Photorights admin
[edit: Yes, I am aware that the blacklisting of journalists and extended co-operation with 'friendly' ones was dropped part way through the 2007 camp.]
"I would rather the NUJ spent time making sure we get access to football matches and other sporting events that are not just one week wonders.... this is where i make my money on a regular basis not from sitting in a field for a week."
Indeed, I don't understand the fuss over this. Most of us would rather a quick in and out with the cooperation of those involved than have to deal with a bunch of moody anarchists pulling hoodies over their faces and sticking their dirty hands on our lens. The media hour last year was fine for getting the job done and it sounds like the pen pushers who want to spend longer in camp have got their wish this year.
However, John Toner clearly remains unimpressed despite writing to the camp last year, “By allowing the media more open access you will impress all journalists”.
Further more, he seemed keen to suggest that the campers could earn positive coverage by giving greater access. “Even those you consider hostile to your aims will have something positive to report about the event”, he wrote.
Dear Admin
I am curious as to what you actually consider the Camp for Climate Action to be? Is it just big group of people in a field, or a place where direct action against the root causes of climate change emerges from? In this entire debate it is not clear what actually it is you are asking for of the CCA - do you want utterly unfettered access to the camp and all going on in it?
And just one last thing that seems quite obvious but actually may come as a shock to some.
Sometimes People (especially those planning on participating in direct action) Don't Want Their Picture Taken!
See you at climate camp! E x
Hello.
I'm wondering if anyone has actually read the policy, or have they just jumped right ahead to being all aggrieved by being asked to abide to some fairly decent guidelines?
Journalists are welcome to attend and participate in the camp outside the media hours, but asked to be open about who they are and to please refrain from waving large lenses in peoples faces 24 hours a day. If you saw the arsenal of lenses that turned up last year you can understand why, at some points it seemed that there were more media crew than actual campers. If they were let loose in the camp to do whatever they please they would very quickly be left with no-one else to film but other camera crew.
The camp isn't an episode of Big Brother and it isn't being put on for just the benefit of the media. People attending the camp have the same right to privacy as any of us do when we are in our homes or at our place of work.
Would a professional photographer really expect to be able to pitch up at any organised event and be free to just wander in and snap about at will? No, because whether it is a festival, a conference, or my Grandmother's 90th birthday party, there are still some guidelines, and indeed good manners that you would be expected to adhere to.
This policy was worked out by consensus at monthly meetings attended by 50-100 people, including members of the NUJ. Anyone (yes, you too) is welcome to attend these meetings and input their ideas into deciding how the camp is run.
Post new comment