Let’s get my bias on this issue right out in the open. I am of the belief, having investigated it, reported on it and experienced it, if I am standing on public property I can shoot pictures of anything I want that is in public view.
Having been told countless times to shut down our cameras from law enforcement officers on the street, private security, the general public and even, occasionally, people in fire and EMS, I know there is no law that gives any of these people the right to order a journalist, or the general public, to do such a thing.
I have received such assurances from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the U.S. Marines, the U.S. Secret Service and other agencies. In general, there is nothing that gives anyone the authority in this situation to order me to stop taking pictures or to confiscate my equipment (by the way, there is nothing I am saying here that should be construed as legal advice).
There have also been law enforcement and others who have ASKED me to stop taking pictures of something. If there is a sound reason, I have cooperated. Examples of this might be there are undercover officers operating in an area, or the person we are focusing on is a witness to a crime.
I know this is a long introduction to the video, but I wanted you to have a clear idea of my history on this topic. A story I did in March at Nationals Park will also give you some background.
The video above was apparently shot on Chicago’s North Side at the end of June. Two guys were shooting police and EMS response to a man down. The victim is described as a frequent flyer for police and EMS.
There is a lot to this story we don’t know. The camera starts and stops. We have only the view, in on screen titles, of the photographers. But the one thing that does seem clear is, that at more than one point, Chicago police officers and EMS personnel try to order the “citizen journalists” to shut down their cameras.
My questions for you in fire and EMS are the following:
Do you believe you have the right to order someone to stop such filming?
If so, what gives you that right?
Do you have any general orders that you believe gives you such authority?
If you read the comments with the video on YouTube, you will see that some people are accusing the picture takers of staging the downed man and of just being jerks (I know it may be a shock to you, but even I have been accused of that myself). Even if all of that was true, do the EMS crew and police have any right to order these guys to stop taking pictures?
Before you start claiming HIPAA gives them that right, you might want to do a little research.
Other than one article about this episode from WBBM radio, I haven’t been able to find any independent facts about the video. If you find more, let me know.
I look forward to your comments.
On a related note, I see this morning The Washington Post has a story on a photographer’s difficulties shooting at DC’s Union Station. This is a little different because the property is leased to a private entity, but I have been confronted by security many times at Union Station. Click here for the article.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
I don't know. I don't care about the filming of action from a distance but for the privacy of the patient I would prefer they not be videoed/taped. Now I am not talking Hippa or whatever I am talking about the common decency that this person is possible in one of the worst situations of there life and they might not want it to be a public event.
Exactly. It's called human ethics and morality. If the patient you are filming is in distress and can't consent to being filmed, don't turn your camera on them.
This is why most people look at reporters and see alot of human indecency in them because they will film ANYTHING.
These are all interesting comments about a patient's privacy and a lack of deceny by reporters that I am glad to discuss.
But the question I am asking is, even assuming your worst assumptions about these "citizen journalists", do the EMS crew and police have any authority to do what they did and do you believe you have similar authority?
Now, onto the issues of decency among the people in my craft.
Did you believe one of the defining images of the Oklahoma City bombing, the FF holding the child, was something that shouldn't have been shown?
Think of all the countless other photographs of firefighters and EMS crews saving people. How many through the years have you seen, not just in newspapers or on TV, but in your own trade journals like Firehouse? Do you believe the people who shot the pictures all lacked decency? If so, shouldn't the fire service take the high road and not request these from news organizations?
When you are shown as a hero I don't see this outcry. No one told me I was scum when I recently showed the late Sheldon Levy's tape of DC firefighters and medics pulling and saving multiple children from a burning home in the late 1980s (I have received the scum comment for other reasons).
Do you believe the picture I ran the other day of a construction worker raising his fist in the air as a FF helps lower him to the ground was something that shouldn't be made public?
That was taken and sent out by the public information officer of the DC Fire & EMS Department. Do you believe only the fire department and police should decide what is decent and the news crews should just stay home?
That said, I do wrestle with ethical and moral issues all of the time when I am faced with these situations. As I have gotten older I have become much more sensitive and I do understand the theory that we are phtotographing someone at the worst moment of their lives. Still I believe those are decisions that the people taking the pictures must make.
For the record, generally speaking, the people who run TV stations these days are much more sensitive about what we run. While we may shoot a rescue, a lot less of it gets on the air. I am not sure we would show much of the late 80s DC rescue if it were to happen today.
We don't even shoot and show body bags anymore.
In this particular case, wouldn't it have been smarter to attend to the patient and not the photographer who is at a distance away (at least on the parts we see), and maybe, if your real concern is about privacy, hold up a sheet and/or shield the patient with your body?
Just some food for thought.
Thanks for writing.
Statter
The medics didn't handle this one right, but the reporters weren't trying to make things go better for the patient, they were making a point about their own issues.
I will try to do my best to protect a patient's privacy, but there are smoother ways to do it. In a public setting, that's the only reason i can think of for shutting down the press, and then you have to ask, not order. A please and an explanation always works, but then I'm in a small town and usually know the press. If that fails, use some extra manpower, if you got it, to hold up a tarp or sheet. Was protecting the patient the reason here?…who knows
For me the issue is patient care. What is more disturbing to me is the fact that the patient was initially missed. Very easy to get sued for something like that. How much did they look around? Did you try a call back to the person reporting the incident.
The tape is cut right when it shows them attempting patient assessment so you can't really see if patient assessment was done or not. Before a medic turns any attention to a photographer, they should at least make sure they are not dealing with a code. I would guess that they probably did that in this instance before turning to the photographer. Therefore, there is a good chance they reconized the patient, got a response from him, and then turned their attention away after a quick assessment.
However, their actions against the photographer could only lead to a bad situation. It seems they simply wanted to assert their authority, because I doubt they really cared about protecting this victim's rights.
If they were so concerned with the patient that they argue was mistreated, why did they never once put their cameras down and attempt to help him? Even when a unit supposedly drove by and they had to call again (I assume they called the first time) and supposedlyy had to wait another five minutes for the unit to arrive, they did not even once offer to so much as go up to the person and see if they were ok. Instead they waited, cameras at the ready, in ambush of the EMS crew. Personally, if I showed up, and saw someone on the ground that I recognized as a frequent flier I would have felt ambushed as well.
That said, the medics did not handle the situation well. A better course of action would have been to just get him on a cot and in the back of the unit, then close the doors. Any attempt at filming inside a unit with closed doors could reasonably be seen as an intrusion of pt privacy, which the photographers have no right to violate (it is considered outside public view). Had they continued to shoot through the closed doors, sheets culd always be placed to block the windows.
Now I say all this as both a FF/EMT and a photographer. I have worked in a few BUSY systems and am used to having a camera pointed at me. I usually just try to ignore them, or if they are being annoying or interfering with pt care (as these photogs were by engaging the responders) I would request PD to deal with them. Conversely, as a photographer, I try to get as close to the action as possible without being in the way, and I always do my best to make sure that the angle of the shot obscures the view of the faces of any possible patients/victims. I also do my best to comply with the requests of any responders on the scene.
I see your point and think it is a valid one. What I was saying is what would I do not if the actions on the tape were correct. How would I have handled it? Probably a simple "Folks, please can you either back up or change the angle so we can preserve this person's dignity." It then depends on how the camera person handles it. Do they stay calm and reasonable or do they explode? One thing that has hurt media/public safety interaction is that some media (not all but some) are trying to find a story for that big break. A couple of firefighters laughing at a fire scene goes from a couple of guys talking to the "Insensitive fire fighters laugh while a family loses there house."
Clearly, the EMS crew and police were wrong and most likely violated their own GO's and SOP's by talking (arguing) with the media. There are departmental personel that have jobs to handle these types of situations (PIO).
However, my first question to the media here is: you waited an additional 5 minutes for EMS to come back after you located the victim, great – you called 911!!!Did you attempt to provide first aid or check on the victim or did you just stand next to him and video tape him. Beyond the rights to free press, how about the basic reposnsibilty to assist a fellow human being in need??
Now, David, we know you went to aid a young teenager come out of the closest – so you must agree the need to provide some type of assitance.
"A better course of action would have been to just get him on a cot and in the back of the unit, then close the doors."
Exactly.
Come one people! We are such hipocrits sometimes it kills me!! I know for a fact that a good majority of Fire/EMS personnel take their own pictures of calls we go on. Yet when a news photographer or a regular citizen do it, we react like the whole world is coming to an end. All you have to do is go to any fire related website and look at the many pictures & videos that have been taken. I am not against this, i do it myself. But come on, is there something those guys are hiding that they dont want themselves filmed?? If you are doing your job properly, you shouldnt have anything to worry about.
These guys arent reporters.They are geeks with cameras. Notice how they didnt help the drunk. Or even try and flag down anyone. If these clowns were real reporters this non-event would be exactly that.. a non-event. You Tube is not a real media outlet IMHO. I understand where you are coming from Dave. I enjoy reading your blog regularly out here in Chicagoland. You are a reporter. These CLOWNS arent.
I appreciate all of the input and am enjoying the discussion because it is something I deal with regularly from the other side.
A couple of points.
Yes, I generally do think reporters and photographers need to be human beings first and should first act that way toward their fellow man. Yes, I would, if possible, and have in the past, left my role as a reporter to assist someone. I know many others have done the same.
Whether these are "real" reporters or something less probably doesn't matter. It is the reality of what you and I deal with every day: Everyone has a camera (including the fire and EMS people).
Asking is always probably a better way to get cooperation from the news media. The best I can tell it really is the only legal recourse you have in a public place (again I am not a lawyer).
If there was an issue with the response that could be newsworthy, it isn't likely I would be arguing it with the EMS crew on the scene.
Billy Sparks: Yes, there are a lot of people with cameras, not just traditional TV folks who are looking for the next video to fame. My feelings as a reporter are I am going to have to see you next week or the week after on a story, if I treat you unfairly, it will come back to haunt me.
That said, the one situation where I will always hold my ground at a scene to the best of my ability, is having access where the public is allowed to go and being able to film in a public place.
Keep the input coming.
Statter
I don't think the taking of pictures was an issue nor do the authorities have the right to stop the filming, however I think the authorities felt threatened for just reasons, Your blog and the bad publicity from other media outlets leads to reprimands for what… A man down call from a frequent flyer who was not visible from the street because he was laying next to cars and instead of allowing the medics to do there job the blogger's distracted them by making an issue out of it, would it have been that hard to just shut the camera off so they could focus on patient care? Instead they choose to keep filming, compromise pt care, and get crews in trouble just because they have nothing better to do then chase ambulances. Just my two cents…
Scene safety is of the up most importance. I seriously doubt that there were any concerns for the safety of the “journalist” (just because you blog doesn’t make you a journalist in my book) or the public at large. Most of the time that access is blocked to the scene it is for the safety of the public at large (including journalist). An example would be a MVA rescue scene that may have hazards such as gasoline that could ignite or a house fire because of a collapse hazard. I can’t recall ever asking for a camera to be shut off but I have asked for it to be moved into the “safe zone”. We have a good relationship with the media around here and will, in most cases, give them a chance to get tape/pictures when the hazards have been mitigated to a point that their safety can be ensured. We try to do this while everything is still in place (i.e. a multiple vehicle MVA) so they can get good shots.
In this case there is not one thing that would have prevented the fire and EMS guys from asking nicely or holding up a tarp to block the view of the patient. We do it all the time when we are dealing with deceased persons. I can say with all certainty if I tried to take a camera away from someone I would lose my job. Fact is none of us were there and know for sure what happened or why.
Eddie,
You wrote: "Your blog and the bad publicity from other media outlets leads to reprimands for what…".
I really doubt my blog has anything to do with what reprimands might happen in this case. I am reporting on it about a month after it happened and a number of weeks after it was in the news in Chicago.
I ran the video, because I thought it might stimulate an interesting discussion on a topic I find interesting and that I thought others might find interesting. So far the discussion has not dissapointed me.
Statter
Film all you want. I won't force you to stop but if I think you are filming something that doesn't need to be shown on tv or the web (that being a pt. identity or a bad emotional situation for example) then I will get someone who isn't occupied to stand right in front of you and your video and make sure he continues to block your shot.
This crew did not do the right thing. The pt. comes first. Get your patient taken care of.
Can't shoot video in Penn Station in NYC. National Guard or NYPD will tell you to put it away. Many bridges and tunnels in the NYC also have signs forbidding photography or video in the vicinity.
All are essentially public venues and roads.
I'm not sure if any specific section of the penal law is devoted to forbidding their photography.
Sorry Dave how I meant that to be interpreted was that the the bloggers knew they were going to make an issue out of it, So regardless of whether it was good or bad it's still publicity, and unfortunately unless your in the fire service and realize the issues the fire service faces in today world, anyone else is going to interpret this as bad publicity. I enjoy reading your blog you tend to stay pretty neutral
I think it depends on the situation.
I recall a fire I was at recently where 6 FF's were injured. Citizens standing around the scene took pictures of our burned brothers and sisters being worked on, some barely clothed. I hadnt even cleared the scene yet, and the pictures that were taken had already found there way to the local media.
I can tell you we were disgusted when we got back to the firehouse and the pics were shown over and over on all the local news stations. Common decency should play a paramount role in any situation where someone is suffering. IMHO
Let me play Devil's advocate. What if the crew asked to not be filmed and when asked they said "I just do not want to be filmed or put on the internet". Does being a public safety person mean that you cannot ask to not be filmed? I am just curious. Some people are just odd that way they don't want to be on camera.
As a provider in a city environment for a long time I can see how this pt was missed. This is Chicago here. These guys are dealing with call ques because the systems are taxed. Don't get me wrong lots of call volume doesn't warrant poor pt care. But you don't know where these guys were dispatched to either. The call May have come in as on the sidewalk on the side of the road etc…
Secondly about there assessment, A good Medic can do most of there assessment while they are approaching their pt. Simply saying "Hello, What's going on today" can tell you most of what you need to know. If they get any answer at all you know they are breathing and at least somewhat conscious. If anything it gave them a chance to see that it's a pt they are familiar with in a area they are used to seeing him in.
Lastly the fact that they put this guys face and name in the video may not be against the law but let me tell you if that happened to me and I was listed as a "local drunk" I would not be happy. Isn't that defamation of character?
"Film all you want. I won't force you to stop but if I think you are filming something that doesn't need to be shown on tv or the web (that being a pt. identity or a bad emotional situation for example) then I will get someone who isn't occupied to stand right in front of you and your video and make sure he continues to block your shot."
Since when was acting like a thug and enforcing your own interpretation of the Constitution added to the job description of a Firefighter or EMT?? Simply enough, in most cases, a reporter or photogs actions are of no concern to you as a first responder unless we are endangering someone else. Rememeber, we aint out there for our own personal kicks, we got a job to do that is no less important than yours and we have ENFORCABLE rights. The fastest way to help me to an early retirement is to try to prevent me from shooting an incident in the public area. I've already gotten one nice check and a letter of appology from a department in PA. that tried that. Pay attention to the job that your are hired to do, dont worry about the photogs. Its not your call what I shoot and for the most part WHERE I shoot. Personally I dont shoot close ups of victims nor anything showing bodies or even body bags. We dont use them on air, so why shoot them?
The photog you pissed off today, might well be the photog that catches you screwing up tomorrow and will have to make a decision about embarrassing you or maybe not. I make that judgement call a lot.
It just seems like those two were out to screw over the medics. Did they attempt to wave down the medic unit? Did they attempt to render aid to Scotty? No. They found it more productive to violate Scotty's privacy and to hassle the EMS crew. These guys are hacks.
YOU PEOPLE GET ON MY NERVES. EVERY FIRE AND MEDIC UNIT HAS MISSED OR HAD TROUBLE LOCATING AN INCIDENT AT ONE TIME OR THE OTHER. WE DO THE BEST WE CAN BUT WE R NOT PERFECT. DO YOU KNOW WHAT INFO WAS GIVEN TO THE MEDICS? DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE MEDICS? THE PHOTOGRAPHERS DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH THE PATIENT'S WELL BEING. AND I'M SURE THEY DIDN'T INSTIGATE ANY ILL WILL FROM THE MEDICS. PLEASE, YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT THEY WANTED A CONFRONTATION. SO DON'T ACT LIKE THE MEDIA IS SO INNOCENT. ANYTHING TO MAKE A STORY. I LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE R QUICK TO JUDGE AND MAKE COMMENTS ON OTHERS WHEN THEY CAN'T EVEN TIE THEIR OWN SHOES.
Lastly the fact that they put this guys face and name in the video may not be against the law but let me tell you if that happened to me and I was listed as a "local drunk" I would not be happy. Isn't that defamation of character?
It ain't slander if it's true.
As for the EMS crew asking not to be filmed, any person being filmed or interviewed by a newscrew has a right to anonimity. The medics would be perfectly within their rights to request digitizing of their faces if and when the video was published.
Obviously, that didn't happen and some innapropriate things did. But don't make the mistake of thinking that they had no right to privacy.
b: Again, I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice, but I think what you will find is you don't have right to have your face digitized. You are in a place (standing on the street) where there is no expectation of privacy.
Also, as employees of the City of Chicago, does the crew really think the taxpayers don't have a right to see what it is they do?
Slammer 505: I am not defending at all how the photographers handled the situation. And for the sake of argument, I am giving you that your worst thoughts about the camera holders are true. Still, my original question is what right or policy allows fire, EMS or police to order anyone to shut down or confiscate a camera in a public place?
Remember, it isn't just these guys who are carrying cameras. Everyone is.
Statter
Statter