PM sacks personal photographer
Written by duckrabbitPersonally I think it’s a shame, because I like the idea that Cameron is taking photography seriously. I also think that having a photographer close to Cameron does in a small way give a voice to the industry within his inner circle.
Infact nothing changes because the photographer will now be employed by the Conservative Party to create propaganda. Before at least he had the scrutiny that comes with being a civil servant.
But that’s politics, right?
Author — duckrabbit
duckrabbit is a production company formed by radio producer/journalist Benjamin Chesterton and photographer David White. We specialize in digital storytelling.
Discussion (13 Comments)
“Infact nothing changes because the photographer will now be employed by the Conservative Party to create propaganda.”
Propaganda is what he would have been doing anyway be it as a civil servant or not – they have “returned to their jobs” therefore the Conservative Party will fund them to do their propaganda but not with public tax payers limited cash. Someone close to Cameron still has a visual voice but it is not coloured by their clumsy attempt to get them paid using public funds.
Photography is still respected enough for its potential power because it is still being retained by the Conservative party – hooray I say!
That does very little for the trust in the medium particularly when “they were hired on short-term or fixed-term contracts, which allow the government to take on staff without publicly advertising positions.” – it is almost like that other initiative that has come on the scene where “a diverse group of photography professionals nominate 100 professional photographers to submit proposals. An independent Editorial Board selects 10 to 20 photographers—based on the strength of their proposals and the importance of the issues they propose to address—to support”.
Sounds like a club, acts like a club and gives funds on a process that is totally selective from the TOP DOWN, making most photojournalists ask “who gets a look in?”. Even worse, what is it going to be like to be in the top 100 and not in the final top 10 or 20? I would be very down and photojournalists must be a very jealous bunch through no fault of your own because merit is not based on audience numbers or market forces but on the personal discretion from the top of this pyramid.
I am not a white western photojournalist looking for the next sensational story abroad in some foreign and distressed place or by being close to the political inner circle domestically but if I was, I would think there was a better chance of marrying into the Royal family with the same prospects for progressive change than to break into that industry on merit (especially given I am an ethnic minority from the emerging market/majority world). Whilst on that subject of weddings…
…who cares as William and Kate are getting married so I am going to get my party sized snack pack + humous and watch BBC News 24 in the UK report it as a live event all day (note to others to look at that great post from Ciara about the media) waiting to drink some English Breakfast tea from my newly ordered celebratory engraved wedding mug – hooray!
Would you sack all the press officers too?
Who said anything about sackings? Wouldn’t it be nice if Photojournalism was well structured without all the messy stuff so photographers can shoot concentrating on doing a good job? Last I read, I said he should be employed for doing his job working hard doing his job for the Conservative party. And so he has!
Calling for people to be sacked is horrid during any time but in austerity particularly so.
Sure but you wanted this job abolished. Would you get rid of the press officers? According to your logic the BBC should get rid of their photographer right?
@iamnot
This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever:
‘That does very little for the trust in the medium particularly when “they were hired on short-term or fixed-term contracts, which allow the government to take on staff without publicly advertising positions.” – it is almost like that other initiative that has come on the scene where “a diverse group of photography professionals nominate 100 professional photographers to submit proposals. An independent Editorial Board selects 10 to 20 photographers—based on the strength of their proposals and the importance of the issues they propose to address—to support”.’
Sorry – I’ll try again. If people hire without a sense of meritocracy then how is anybody supposed to trust that the good stuff is going to rise to the top and be visible?
For the public it is about editorial control “Are we seeing the best of what photojournalism can be” and for PJ’ists, it is about how asking “how am I going to get work by working as hard as I can to be the best image maker I can”.
Google “a diverse group of photography professionals nominate 100 professional photographers to submit proposals. An independent Editorial Board selects 10 to 20 photographers—based on the strength of their proposals and the importance of the issues they propose to address—to support”.” and you will find where that exact sentence is.
Without meritocracy, you are relying on the people who choose to choose wisely. Editorial control has to be balanced by some form of objective measurement of performance, be it profitability, popularity or functionality else how do you know you are doing something right? So for wanna-be photojournalists, do you work hard to be the best you can be or do you work hard at trying to make enough friends to be considered in that special pool of 100 to submit?
If you are in that special pool of 100 chosen to submit, are you going to be happy for the reasons given for not being chosen for a grant? No matter the purity of intention, are they going to stop people suspecting that the choices are loaded? Are they going to stop accusations from photographers nominating other photographers deserving of some cash generously donated by institutions outside photojournalism using the massively subjective criteria of “the strength of their proposals and the importance of the issues”? I would hate to be in the top 100 and be told by one agency that what I believed to be really important was not actually important enough. Talk about building conflicts of interest into a structure before even starting – I would hate to be on that panel but maybe duckrabbit should be so they can show the world their independence!!!
It is either an innocent mistake in the rush to go online from a community shielded by public opinion OR it is the founders doing whatever they can to legitimise the gravy train for their own. It is all about trust. I don’t care personally about losing an opportunity because I am not a photojournalist but as a member of the audience, it really has to work 10 times harder already for me to trust what is being done is going to be anything different or make any difference.
Above all though, I hope it does! Any trust left in the medium will be further eroded if this ends up of doing the same things as before, enriching the same people, in the same way without producing any change of substance.
That is what I mean by trust. Sorry if that was not clear!
(p.s I am not saying be as popular as you can, or as profitable as you can be in some base kind of way but at least consider a feedback mechanism in relation to an actual audience please!)
And you need to sack the BBC’s photographer right? He does corporate shots.
See other comment re: Who said anything about sackings? More jobs for photographers – wouldn’t it be nice to create a structure that makes them as employable as possible! That is the point of pretty much most of what I say.
Seems to me like you are dodging the question. You called for the position to be scrapped. Fair enough, but if it’s really a point of principle then it should be applied across the board, which means abolishing press officers and abolishing the role of photographer at the BBC.
Or are you just playing politics too?
No I never. When did I say that?
I called for the position to reflect the politics of a particular party and not paid for by the state. Photographing and documenting Cameron and Osbourne has social and historical significance and one that the Conservative Party should fund. They did it before and they are paying his wages again.
I said a state funded photographer should be shooting in the public interest and the recruitment process be open to applications from the qualified in a fair process.
It is about doing things as cleanly, clearly and as transparently as possible else it becomes political. That is pretty much the principle in most of the things I say across the board – manage the industry better and it will not have to deal with all of the mess created by all the politics created by this messy business.
Cameron made Parsons life messy unduly. I will eat humble pie if you can show me where I call for him (or indeed anyone despite the madness I see) to be sacked.
‘Photographing and documenting Cameron and Osbourne has social and historical significance’
And that’s not in the public interest?
Why do you think propaganda images of cameron and osbourne is public images?
It is socially significant Bush uses imagery like he did on his “aircraft carrier we won the war” shot but it is not public interest.
Do you not see how economically shit structures produces and incentivises bad behaviours? How trust is eroded by putting people in bad situations before even taking a single shot through mismanagement?
Parsons had this happen to him. This was Camerons’ structure and it went wrong like it was always going to. Like the other structure I describe, it is wrong before starting out despite the purity of intentions from the donators.
These things make a beautiful powerful medium for social change lose it’s relevance.
“Why do you think propaganda images of cameron and osbourne is public interest?” I meant. iPhone spellchecker being clever again…