Just a quick one, I can't stay away lately!
I was reading the newspaper online (that's my first mistake, right there) about a gangland shooting in my old neighbourhood of Brunswick, here is a link.
In this piece, photographer Tim Carrafa photographed a witness to the crime, in what very much looks to be a situation where she is showing a policewoman an image/images taken on her digital camera. In short- she is giving evidence to the police.
This is a good thing. What's not good, is that Tim, in all of his wisdom, elected to publicly post a photograph clearly showing the womans face, and the fact she's giving evidence against men with guns who have no issue shooting people in broad daylight. The photo in no way launched the (sketchy at best) story over the line of greatness, it's just a hastily grabbed scene, from 'the scene'. And that being so, they could have printed the story without it.
Brunswick is an ethnic enclave, a lot of people who live there know a lot of the rest of the people that live there. This photograph marks the witness for death if she is known to the wrong person, and her identity should have been kept secure, for her own safety.
I think freedom of the press is incredibly important, and I think they should be free to run without censorship. Except in cases where they present a danger to members of the community. This is just common sense. If the witness disappears, it is a tragedy, both for the witness and their family, and also for the course of justice. Testimony from missing witnesses is inadmissible in Court.
So I'd like to ask publicly, what was the photographer thinking? If you Google yourself Tim, share your reasoning behind such a risky submission?
This is knifey, from 'the internet'.
I was reading the newspaper online (that's my first mistake, right there) about a gangland shooting in my old neighbourhood of Brunswick, here is a link.
In this piece, photographer Tim Carrafa photographed a witness to the crime, in what very much looks to be a situation where she is showing a policewoman an image/images taken on her digital camera. In short- she is giving evidence to the police.
This is a good thing. What's not good, is that Tim, in all of his wisdom, elected to publicly post a photograph clearly showing the womans face, and the fact she's giving evidence against men with guns who have no issue shooting people in broad daylight. The photo in no way launched the (sketchy at best) story over the line of greatness, it's just a hastily grabbed scene, from 'the scene'. And that being so, they could have printed the story without it.
Brunswick is an ethnic enclave, a lot of people who live there know a lot of the rest of the people that live there. This photograph marks the witness for death if she is known to the wrong person, and her identity should have been kept secure, for her own safety.
I think freedom of the press is incredibly important, and I think they should be free to run without censorship. Except in cases where they present a danger to members of the community. This is just common sense. If the witness disappears, it is a tragedy, both for the witness and their family, and also for the course of justice. Testimony from missing witnesses is inadmissible in Court.
So I'd like to ask publicly, what was the photographer thinking? If you Google yourself Tim, share your reasoning behind such a risky submission?
This is knifey, from 'the internet'.
No comments:
Post a Comment