Quote Originally Posted by Cold View Post
Wow! I had forgotten that I'd made this post here (it's been a crazy few days), but I'm really glad to see the discussion.

For those in the know: what do you think are the chances of this sort of...embargo for lack of a better word...catching on with other publishers, and possibly artificially reducing/eliminating the market for war-zone photojournalism?

I tend to agree with others here that, at this point, it's their moral (not to mention economical) prerogative to choose what they will and will not buy, and that there are many more buyers out there. But if this were to catch on among publishers, could it progress to the extent that the media was, in effect, keeping people in the dark about the realities of war? I understand that there are now alternatives, such as blogs, that can be operated by any individual and reach the entire world, but these sources don't have nearly the audience of international major media sources.
I tend to err on the side of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" in that the safety of the photographer is less important than getting news out about suffering people that images might help cause uproar that would lead to a safer life for some of those suffering.

The photographer knows his choice and knows he is risking his life, that's his choice to make, the people in those regions didn't all choose to be there, And having info, images, story to go with it is critical to getting help to these people in whatever little might come of it.

So that's my opinion anyway. Censorship for WHATEVER reason is bad IMHO.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk