Friday, August 29, 2008

Photo journalism: The now thing of the media

I was reading this series of events on the STOMP portal earlier whereby someone went to Sheng Shiong Supermarket and discovered that the frozen goods were not stored properly and snapped a picture. After that, the same person saw some biscuits that were labeled “For sale in Philippines only” and was about to take a photo when a staff accused her loudly of being a troublemaker and coerced her to delete all the photos that she took?

So what went wrong??? Taking a picture to stand up for something wrong seems to be what STOMP encourages its readers to do so. But at the same time, there is an apparent invasion of privacy when others have their pictures taken or have their premises photographed. Even though in this case, the reader did have an intention to actually query on the apparent compromise of food safety, it could have been handled more tactfully!

The role of such new media has caused privacy issues to be eroded. Anyone with a camera is a photo journalist, but, does anyone actually verify the information seen on the photographs?

Remember: Half empty or half full? It all depends on the way you see it!

7 comments:

Agagooga said...

See, this is why so many places (including the SAF) don't allow cameras.

If you question the photographs, would you believe people if they related the events in question verbally? As people say, NPNT.

Photoshopped pictures are exposed (see: Iranian missile tests, Brian Walski's Iraq pictures). You might as well descend into solipsism and doubt everything.

the(new)mediaslut said...

More like PhotoKaypohism than Photojournalism..

Agagooga said...

I agree taking pictures of people, say, drooling in public is stupid.

But in the SS incident cited, photography should definitely be allowed.

CNEIL said...

It is better that the laws are ambiguous. If they were clearly defined then you would be a criminal just for taking a photo, instead of simply being judged on the you use the photo, which is the current method of evaluation.

Really the law is on the grocery store's side because it is private property, but since there is no law "on the books" it would be an expensive hassle for the supermarket to press some kind of charge.

KH said...

Agree with CNEIL, sometimes uncovering the truth takes a step off the law. Isn't journalism about finding out what someone doesn't want you to find out because it means their job?

Agagooga said...

I am not aware of any laws against taking pictures in Singapore unless:

1) You are outraging people's modesty
2) You are penetrating state secrecy

Onlooker said...

Hmmm I would have to agree with agagooga.
But this is the stomper chance for their 5 min of fame.
Who would give up fame for the modesty of others?(FT included)
No pic no talk :( plus no self discretion.