More on the Whole Simon Blint Fiasco
Well I didn't quite expect the Simon Blint fiasco that resulted in my forceful ejection from the SF MOMA on Friday to generate quite the attention that it has. That said, I've had 48 hours or so now to reflect on the incident more and I wanted to share more of my thoughts and feelings. I also want to take an opportunity to clear up some misconceptions and allegations that have been raised due to the incident's popularity on the internet.
One allegation that has been raised is that Blint threw me out because he felt that I was shooting down a low cut blouse of one of his employees sitting in the atrium below where I was shooting. The photo above is a photo that I snapped of Blint as he was publicly admonishing me from the floor, that's him with his arms crossed there -- he's about the size of an ant in the photo. As you will see, the female employee in question also appears in the photograph (the ticket taker next to Blint). She is not wearing a low cut blouse. In fact she's wearing some sort of a yellowish/orangish sweater or jacket sort of thing -- she's sort of hard to see as a 14mm lens makes people look super far away. Her arms, shoulders, in fact every visible area of her except her hands are completely covered in clothing.
More to the point, as mentioned, I was shooting with a 14mm ultra wide angle lens. A point that I made several times to Blint when offering repeatedly to show him my photographs which he refused to examine and simply would not consider. As you can see, even with this shot taken directly a 14mm lens simply cannot produce a "down blouse" shot with any level of detail whatsoever. When people are 15-30 feet away from you and you shoot them with a 14mm lens you simply cannot get anything that in any way resembles some sort of down blouse shot. I would invite anyone from the SF MOMA's photography staff who understands what a 14mm lens is capable of to chime on the possibility that this was somehow my intention.
But I was very willing to give Simon Blint the benefit of the doubt that he may not have understood the basic mechanics of lenses or photography. It was for this reason that I offered *several* times to share my photos with him which he continuously refused. Had he simply reviewed my photos he would have seen that the photos in question were in no way intended to be indecent.
Instead Blint was arrogant, disrespectful, belligerent and quite simply would not entertain any possible conversation regarding the matter whatsoever. I gave Blint *every opportunity* to diffuse the situation, sit down, and have a rational and reasonable conversation regarding me and my photography. He simply was hellbent on throwing me out of the museum. Each objection I'd raise, each invitation to review my photography was responded to with the exact same response. "I'm asking you to leave." "I don't care." "I don't want to look at your photographs." "For the 11th time I'm asking you to leave." Armed with two security guards, Blint was exerting his physical authority unjustly.
It was at this point that I thought it only fair to warn Blint that should he throw me out of a public museum after such a horrible display of public humiliation and embarrassment on his part that I would be blogging about the incident. He said he did not care. When I asked Blint for his last name his response to me was "why, so you can blog it?" to which I answered "yes." He knew this was coming and still took no effort whatsoever to have a rational, reasonable conversation about it.
Robert Scoble made a point that had this happened to a reporter for the New York Times that Blint would be out of a job. The point is, this sort of treatment should not happen to anybody. Not a reporter for the New York Times, not me, and not even some random person without any power at all to fight back.
Now I was mad at being publicly admonished and branded a pervert for spying on his employees in an atrium when I was certainly not doing that and so I used the word asshole to describe Mr. Blint. I'm going to change that word in my blog headline and in my post to read simply "jerk," instead of asshole. Several people have admonished me, most significantly my wife, for resorting to that kind of language and jerk is just as accurate a description.
My problem with Mr. Blint was not a result of his misunderstanding of my photography. It was in his insistence *not to review* the situation more carefully after an incredible poor display of customer service on his part. Had he offered me the simple courtesy of a review of my photos as I offered I believe none of this unfortunate experience ever would have made it into a blog post.
After the incident I still spent several hours deeply considering the impact of my blog post on Mr. Blint and his personal name and reputation as well as that of the SF MOMA. The fact is that I feel very very strongly about public treasures and public arts. I currently have over 20,000 photographs mostly documenting San Francisco online. I shoot every single day. I shoot hundreds of photos every single day. I believe art to be one of the highest callings one can pursue. I'm trying to publish one million photographs before I die. To learn more of what I and my photography are about I'd point you to this set on Flickr. It certainly is *not* shooting down unsuspecting females blouses.
Along with a respect for my own art comes a deep respect for the treasures that live in museums. A museum to me is an *incredibly* important public treasure. The SF MOMA one of our finest. The point is though that the SF MOMA does not belong to Blint. He is simply one of many employees presently entrusted to help manage it. He is a steward of a national and public treasure. And the more I thought about the fact that such a person could be in charge of thousands of experiences by thousands of visitors to such an important public treasure, the more I felt it necessary to ensure that his sort of behavior not take place in the SF MOMA again. I have by the way personally contacted several members of the SFMOMA staff, none of which have responded to me as of yet.
So why did this post resonate so strongly with everyone?
What made this story the number one story on digg yesterday, all over friendfeed, SFist, Boing Boing and dozens of other blogs? To me the answer is simple. Increasingly we are living in a world where photographers are routinely harassed again and again by authority figures over stepping their authority -- and it makes you feel like crap when that happens.
Over the course of the past year I've heard hundreds of stories where photographers were unjustly targeted for taking pictures. While the "photography steals your soul," superstition seems to be long gone, a whole litany of replacements have taken it's place. I've seen people branded as pedophiles for shooting at public parks or their neighborhood swimming pool. I've seen people claiming 9/11 makes checking photography necessary. I've seen train stations and malls and shopping centers and museums and parks and public buildings and architecture increasingly turn against the photographer. And when this happens and when people see something that has happened to them at one point or another happening to someone else it resonates.
Over the course of the last 48 hours I've also had more time to think about the impact that my blog post will have on Simon and my anger has softened a bit. I am at this point sorry over any negative personal impact that this incident will have on Simon Blint's online identity for years to come. But the point is that the SF MOMA and all of our public cultural treasures owe us more than Simon Blint. They owe us passionate employees who get excited to see the public interacting and engaging with and in the arts. No one should ever be thrown out of a museum for taking photos, in fact it should be encouraged. And if someone suspects any sort of wrong doing, every patron, not only supporting members, should be provided a recourse and a review. And *that* was Simon Blint's biggest mistake and too important a mistake to make to simply let him get away with it. Especially when he is directly responsible for thousands of others who will visit this cultural treasure in the days and months ahead.
Finally for another second opinion on this incident I'd invite you to read torbakhopper's account. He was an actual eye witness to the event. He was also threatened to be thrown out by Blint as well and he wasn't even shooting.
Update: The SFMOMA Responds to this incident here.
posted by Thomas Hawk at 2:55 PM
93 Comments:
The other reason I think people are touchy about photography is the way the whole YouTube "let me video my buddy riding on the hood of my car smashing mailboxes" has taken off.
And no -- I'm not saying anyone was smashing mailboxes - or that this was even close to that.
Rather one possible reason people are jumpy is the way that photographs routinely wind up widely circulated online.
I won't be surprised if within a year or two "no video - no photography" signs are much more prevalent. Which is sad because a few of the jerks may ruin it for everyone who can photograph responsibly.
How sad, for you Thomas. And, everyone rallying around your opinion here. Is there any justice at all to a one-sided rant? This to me is where blogging loses it's credibility, by the second. I see that you tried to make some grand statement about the rights of photographers, but your method for doing so is selfish, immature, and actually rather cruel. Do you know Simon Blint? Do you have any idea of what it means to be able to safely and securely bring art to the masses? I do, on both accounts. I have worked at SFMOMA. You have used this incident to construct a rather flimsy soap box. It would have been nice if you thought twice about trying to trash the name of someone who works tirelessly to make SFMOMA a place where people can enjoy art. I don't profess to know anything about photography, outside of enjoying it. So, I would never make blanket statements about your profession. You feel you have the credibility to do so about running the customer service of a Museum or protecting the viewing rights of it. Perhaps if you stood taking tickets and answering the same question hundreds of times with a smile for 8 hours, or patinetly dealt with people trying to damage priceless art, or took care of a guest who has fallen ill or been injured while visiting and needed medical help, or tried keeping employees safe from hostile and inappropriate guests, or sat in hours of meetings discussing how to make visiting the Museum a pleasant and enjoyable experience especially during shows like Kahlo where the lines are lengthy, ALL of which Simon Blint has done, then you would be able to better understand why this entire mess that you started is beyond silly. You have done your blog a disservice, and you have done the same for a wonderful institution and a hard working guy trying to do his job. I hope to find every place that you have unfairly written about this and share this perspective to show how small you showed up with this big effort.
Even from up there Blint still looks like a "jerk". This should never of happened and it's the Blints of this world that make life for everyone that much less enjoyable. Little power-happy buzzkilling stick-in-the-wheels assholes.
You may have calmed down, but personally I hope he gets his ass fired from the bad publicity.
Thanks for the update - and glad to hear you're moderating your language on the previous post. I started to blog yesterday that this stuff isn't as new as we think, but I left it out. I got my first SLR rig about thirty years ago. (Yeah, that makes me an old fart.) There were times I was told I couldn't shoot while people with consumer cameras snapped away.
Smaller cameras are certainly less threatening. I'm anxious to see the new Micro Four Thirds System cameras for that very reason.
You've made this guy a whipping boy, that's for sure.
I know too well the temptation of letting ones anger show in writing, and how that changes once the initial anger has died down. You're only human, after all.
That said, it still does not excuse Blint's behavior. I think a powertripping jerk (which is exactly what he is) like him should lose his job on the spot. Not for throwing you out, but for being a jerk about it, for not listening to you and refusing to see the photos when so offered. Men like him are no good in any kind of position, that involved dealing with the public.
I hope you hear from SF MOMA at some point, and that we get to read another update, based on whatever response they might have.
As a amateur photographer, I find this type of action entirely unacceptable. Unfortunately since 9/11 this type of action has been more and more frequent.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm is a lawyer and has a pdf of photographer's rights.
The way that Blint handled this was entirely unacceptable. A wide angle lens such as what you used would not show "down her blouse" due to the distortion of the field, but of course Blint would have seen this if he had bothered to check your shots.
The bottom line is that the policy was posted on the web site, and the employees are not following the stated policy.
I loved John Worthington's comment. The last thing I want to happen to me is definitely be "blinted."
It's terrible we as photographers most go through such ridiculous obstacles to perform our art.
" It was in his insistence *not to review* the situation more carefully after an incredible poor display of customer service on his part."
Too funny! He has absolutely no obligation (or legal right) to peruse your photos. You caused a disruption, behaved like a child, and threw a tantrum when confronted. That's enough.
Anonymous... I may never have
worked "customer service of a Museum"
... but back in the day I worked
many a "customer service" job.
I never resorted to yelling at
a paying customer.
No Thomas you were correct with your first headline.
That guy is an Asshole!!!!
Having read the original post and this follow, Blint still seems like a total c*nt to me.
Thomas, you have more restraint than me.
While I totally side with you in this case (based soley upon the facts that you present), let me just provide an once of warning. Had Simon Blint called the police, they may have arrested you for disorderly conduct, and/or trespassing. Yes, tresspassing because you were asked to leave, then ordered to leave and you didn't comply. The musuem is open to the public, but he does have the authority to ask anyone to leave, like it or not.
"I'm going to change that word in my blog headline and in my post to read simply "jerk," instead of asshole. Several people have admonished me, most significantly my wife, for resorting to that kind of language and jerk is just as accurate a description."
I saw the word "asshole" on Saturday, and thought, "Wow, Thomas must really be mad about this guy."
I stand behind you. You don't appear to be one who looks for trouble, or reasons to create soapboxes. It seems to me you just want to take your pictures. Thank you Thomas for your crusade, as it were.
Is Blint an asshole in this situation? Sure.
Did you have to call him one on your superdy duperdy very popular blog here? Probably not.
But, I still think that Blint could have handled the situation more appropriately. Your original post was fair. Between you and torbakhopper, the credibility of the story isn't even remotely close to being in question. You might get worked up about things, but you're fairly rational when it comes down to it, and what you're fighting for, I believe, is extremely admirable. I appreciate your efforts as do many others. You know this. While I understand you've cooled down a bit, I don't feel you should back down at all. There are things that have been brought into the limelight here (aside from your crazy french fry throwing) and for the sake of those that follow in your footsteps of potentially walking into the SFMOMA, those things should be questioned and examined. Not that I think that firing Blint is necessary, but there should be a fresh blueprint of ground rules for that boy to follow (Complete sidenote, but I found it quite annoying that he's bragging about a family member getting him the job there and how that family member would keep him there. He thinks his bizzness doesn't stink, apparently).
My point: keep on keeping on. Your intentions are good and true, and I think that shines through more than anything else.
-fireinthesky
hmmm. when does "blinted" get added to Urban dictionary?
But, no, given the scenario as presented, and given his insistence on handling the confrontation at distance at volume, the guy needs a severe reprimand at the very least.
Wow, I cannot get over the way this Hawk guy is dealing w/ this situation.
Why did you omit the details regarding your expulsion from the museum in your original, slanderous post? This alone points to the biased and immature reaction you set out into public domain via your site.
Does the supporters of Mr Hawk not realize that an individual(s) were threatened/concerned about the nature of your photograph onto a young woman. Sure, may have been a misunderstanding, but to negate this is fully demonstrating that you were in the wrong in an overblown scenario.
Through good acquaintances whom were working during this debacle, they have all said(and other visitors whom have publicly stated) that you were making a scene, using a vast amount of threats and generally being, to borrow a term, an A$$HOLE.
You need to do your homework before going to such extent, as well. It makes you look even MORE foolish.
One last thought... Why do so many want a reaction from the museum and/or Simon Blint? Go watch "Days of our Lives" or something, or better yet, get off your computer and enjoy life.
I live in Plattsburgh, a small city in the northeastern corner of NY State. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve been hassled for taking photos with a compact digital camera.
I make sure to document each incident on my blog. Recently I photographed some playground equipment, no children around it. I had some girls follow me and ask why I was photographing kids as if I was some sort of pervert. I had to show them my images to prove I didn’t photograph them or any other kids. ( http://writog.blogspot.com/2008/05/evil-man-with-camera.html ) There’s a difference between concern and fear. There’s been too much fear-mongering on the part of the government and the media.
More recently I was hassled for shooting a building being demolished. The site was in plain view from the public sidewalk. After someone who worked for the paper mill tried to stop me, I discovered that the same subject had appeared that day on the front page of the local paper. ( http://writog.blogspot.com/2008/04/photos-verboten.html ) Apparently reporters and photojournalists can take shots but not us “civilians.”
So far I’ve been hassled four times this year over nothing. I would hate to see what would happen if I had a DSLR instead of my small Canon P&S.
I don’t back down. When the city cops started to hassle me, I wrote a letter to the mayor, city attorney, and the police chief, explaining I was within my rights to take photographs when I had been confronted. Don’t let them browbeat you – unless you don’t value your rights.
Luke T. Bush
Let me get this straight -- you were pointing your camera at an employee of a private business, and after being asked to stop taking pictures, you kept on shooting anyway. And then they kicked you out.
Well, there's a shocker.
I think you are in the wrong here.
The security guy is doing his job - dealing with security of the building and staff. You don't know anything about that in the same way he does'nt know anything about photography.
There could be a dozen reasons why he wanted you to stop photography (VIP visitors, the lack of safety precautions with you hanging a camera over the balcony, you are photographing his staff not the building, the problem dress of the employees, your camera looks different).
He asks you to stop and you become difficult.
He's talking to you and you are still taking pictures (the photos show that!).
And you threaten him with your blog - hey he's doing his job and you are in 'I will crush you with my blog' mode. Is everybody in life who does'nt let you do what you want going to be called an asshole on your blog??
So now Staff at the SF MOMA are under threat of being written/photographed about in a one sided fashion and guess what will happen the next time the photography policy comes up at a board meeting?? "You know we got so much hassle and grief from it and the staff are'nt happy about the risk of being photographed and branded an asshole, lets just ban photography completely its so much easier...".
I don't see anything other than masturbatory material for a narcissist. How many different accounts have you blogged about this on? Myspace? Twitter? Facebook? Flickr? Just in case a few of your cronies don't see it the first time, you post it seven or eight more times to make sure everybody knows how you were picked on. This story sickens me. The SF MOMA is a privately run business. They can throw you out for no reason at all. Deal.
And this is anon because I don't want your idiot friends to spam me up. I don't get off on tons of comments like some. But then, maybe you'll just capture my ip address, fly out to my home, take my picture, and post it without permission. I hope you get sued for libel. Get a life. You wouldn't have to post crap like this if your photography was any good.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
An appropriate action might have been to calmly go over to the 'suspect', calmly ask to see the photographs and congratulating him for the well done work, when there is no 'down blouse' shot to find. Certainly this would require training and a respectful attitude towards customers and people in general. The kind of training and respectful attitude 'Customer Relations Directors' typically have. And certainly to be calm and respectful is not such an ego trip as shouting throughout the SF Moma main hall. He might have had a hell of a bad day until then. Still, no reason to ruin other people's day too.
And .. it might not have been Mr. Blints intention to take away photographers rights, but I totally agree with TH and other posters saying that photography is not a crime. We need to step in for photographers rights. It is en vogue to bully harmless photographers nowadays. For nothing. Just because people like to bully other people. Today it is a harmless photographer that is bullied. What is next?
Wow, there sure are a lot of posts from "Anonymous" that side with Simon and are critical of TH. In fact just about the only critical posts are from "Anonymous". Come on, Anonymous, your credibility is zero. Have the balls to identify yourself. Friends/co-workers or Simon himself?
So, when you offered to show Blint the photos, was that in between taking pictures of him while he's telling you to stop taking pictures of the staff?
You've taken at least a few hundred thousand more photos than I have, and objectively you didn't seem to be doing anything wrong. Even so, my impression about taking pictures with people in them is that perceptions are all that matter (i.e., it doesn't matter if your lens is really 14mm).
But what it sounds like you have here is someone who said "stop taking pictures of my staff" and you kept shooting away and specifically targeted him. That's where a problem comes in.
If the way you're shooting pictures of someone is making them feel uncomfortable, then you stop taking pictures with them in it. (I assume that Blint is empowered to speak for his staff.) You don't get on a soapbox, argue "I'm not taking dirty photos, take a chill pill, man", put on a 50mm lens, take close-ups of the person yelling at you, and subject him to a public flogging by calling him an asshole while posting those pictures on the internet.
It just makes me embarrassed to call myself a photographer.
(I also imagine that photography inside the museum will be defined as a privilege, not a right. The museum staff in their sole discretion will define disruptive behavior. In the worst case, they'll ban photography again. Or maybe Blint will apologize. But if I were him, I wouldn't feel like apologizing to someone who calls me an asshole.)
Amen Thomas. What you said.
It's not your words that made Blint an asshole; he did that himself. Photography is not a crime, period.
One suggestion - I reckon you should disable anonymous posting on your blog. If those cowards can't put a name (or even netalias) to their words, they're not worth a damn.
Damn ... I'm trying to watch this and see what happens because I'm a photog that hates seeing his rights trashed by over-zealous security as much as the next guy, but posting Blint's photo without permission -- and especially whoever posted what could potentially be his home address -- is out of line.
Digging your heels in to fight back is one thing, but posting pics and private information doesn't help your cause, man.
If you really were wronged, take it to the authorities and blog about your eventual victory, don't drag Blint through the mud over the internet the second it happens.
Even if he is a "jerk," he's human, and you should rethink your strategy. Being the bigger jerk didn't solve anything in high-school, and it's not going to solve anything here.
Is the second comment down actually Blint himself? I think yes.
Thomas Hawk > Increasingly we are living in a world where photographers are routinely harassed again and again by authority figures over stepping their authority...
In Tokyo and Osaka, trains offer separate cars only for women (during rush hours), since it became quite common that men (sitting) would use their mobile phone cameras to "shoot" from below up the skirt of nearby women (standing up).
There has been significant discusson about Google's street view invading privacy.
In continental Europe, since decades, you have the "right to your picture" unless you are a high-ranking politician, show star, athlete or you show up in a "historic event". This means that papers can not publish your picture without either your clear consent or by hiding the features that make you recognizable. Breaking these laws and showing "less popular" people in embarrassing, but still pretty public situations has cost some publishers millions of EUR.
Publication on the Internet is giving a DIFFERENT QUALITY to photography. Heck, even way back in the 70s I could have be seen coming out of a sex shop by someone I knew. Europeans buy their condoms in the supermarket, where everybody watching can deduce size and some sexual preferences. So what? Well, having this documented in a form that is effectively permanent, and can be linked to by everyone, changes how photography (and other recording devices) are perceived these days.
When you take pictures, nobody knows anymore when and were they will end up. You may say that the leaking of the Paris Hilton (sex) and Amy Winehouse videos (crack) was just part of their marketing campaigns, and that may be true. But everyone is aware of these cases, and public perception of photography is changing due to that.
The situation has not just changed for photographers. Camera phones and digital cameras are around us everywhere. There are lots of "public viewing areas" on social networks and photography sites. This forces those not ignoring their public image even more to be dressed in Taliban-style so that a high resolution camera cannot take "Lady Di"-like pictures. It makes them not to drink alcohol anymore so that camera phones can not eternalize the one moment when they lost control. Why could GraphJam just make this joke that Speedos are used by 1% professional swimmers and 99% European males? Is it just the more relaxed view of sex in Europe or also less awareness of how long certain pictures could be around for public viewing?
--
I'm not saying that you are taking offensive photos. I'm not saying you are a "molester" of any kind.
In the case of MOMA, I don't want to speculate about the motivation of their Director of Visitor Relations. I will say that I would expect somebody in his position to try de-escalating the situation, and not putting you in a position of publicly being considered a sex offender. Also, I would expect a clear policy for picture taking to be posted at MOMA. But I would not object at all, if MOMA said "no photos of people, please". And I think at least 50% of the population have no idea what and what not a "14 mm" lens can show from some distance.
--
There is something else in this story, which I find highly offensive. It's your use of the real name, instead of the function of the MOMA Director of Visitor Relations (DoVR). Jeremiah Owyang is discussing how mentioning the DoVR's real name hurts him more than the whole crusade hurts you. This is not my point, however. I understand it's common in the USA that real names of people accused of something "illegal" are used in papers before they are even found guilty of that. [When I was a professor at UIUC in the 80s, all students supposedly involved in weekend fraternity "accidents", where named in full in the Monday local paper, archives of which can still be found on the Internet.] Admitted, I come from a culture in which this is highly illegal, and I fought hard back in Champaign to get rid of this practice.
Even in the light of the first amendment, in the MOMA case, you have IMO clearly taken the law in your own hands by publishing the full real name of the DoVR and not just his function. You have every right to complain to MOMA and about MOMA on your blog. However, the DoVR was clearly acting in an official role, so that his name should be kept private. (Yes, interested parties probably could have found the name in the MOMA directory -- but it would not show up in every search for that person's name.)
With the picture of the DoVR, on your blog today -- two days after the incident -- you have taken this crusade even further. I know you will claim to had to show this picture to prove your point. What about putting a black spot over the DoVR's face? And your picture is only a proof that FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE a "down blouse" shot was not possible. How about his perspective? Haven't we had enough of these "he said, she said" photo and video arguments on the web lately for you as a professional in this field to understand that the DoVR might have had a reason to suspect you could make a "down blouse" shot?
Your own picture on your blog is hiding your face. I guess this has a reason beyond emphasizing the camera. Even if not, I think you need to calm down, and respect OTHER peoples interests and limits.
About > ...writing under the pen name Thomas Hawk
I hadn't seen this when I mentioned you hiding behind your camera in the picture above.
Frankly, giving some idiot the space to complement your use of the real name of the DoVR with his address (or that of an uninvolved stranger, but still a real person) WHILE NOT USING YOUR REAL NAME YOURSELF is even worse than I thought.
May I -- for the eduction of that person claiming to know the Nuremburg trials so well -- remind everyone that the way the Nazi's created the lists of Jews, Communists, Roma and Gays to be deported to the concentration camps was by collecting information that was previously considered "private" from neighbors and friends (including picture proofs in particular of members of the gay community).
PS For those of you questioning "Anonymous" commenters on this blog: I don't have a Google/Blogger account since I deeply distrust Google's "respect" for privacy, and know that the other naming options on Blogger can be faked as well. This and the 1 other "DoVR" comment above are mine, and I guess some German "accent" shows up in them.
Your own picture on your blog is hiding your face. I guess this has a reason beyond emphasizing the camera.
Nah, more that it represents my passion for photography. I've posted several photos though that do show my face publicly (and there are hundreds more on the internet that others have taken that you can easily find with a simple Google or Flickr image search).
A reader on my blog referred to Mr. Hawk's thrashing of Simon Blint as "the journalism that is blogging."
Let’s be clear: Blogging is not journalism. The former is a pastime, the latter is a professional trade—one in which great care is given (by reporters who do their job well) to present both sides of a story in an objective manner free of emotion. Seeing as I spent the past decade working as a reporter, covering everything from capital murder cases to city hall, the housing meltdown and random odd events (plus, I maintain a blog), I am qualified to make this argument.
Journalism is the business of objectively presenting facts, of making calls and conducting in-depth interviews to get to the heart of a story. It’s about cultivating well-placed sources and putting aside political and personal beliefs. It’s about covering all the bases. When you get quotes from a person representing one side of the issue, you next interview someone on the other side of the fence. It’s getting names and titles correct, checking them multiple times yet still worrying whether you got everything right the night before your story is published.
After a reporter has double- or triple-checked his facts and put the story on paper, an editor reads it to ensure accuracy and balance. The editor then sends it to the copy desk, where a copy editor will read it for clarity. The copy chief, or slot, will then give it a final read before sending it off to the printer. The story is then put out there for public consumption. In journalism, a reporter’s name appears above the story. There are no aliases or pseudonyms. There is no hiding behind a fake identity. The byline states the person who wrote the story stands by the facts in the article and can back them up if called upon to do so with hard proof.
The blogger is different. Blogging is writing about whatever the writer feels like, in whatever way he or she feels like writing. This is different than writing a news story, which is the very heart of journalism. Bloggers take news events and present their own spin on them. While this encourages public discourse on a number of issues, it is not the same as reporting. Being a reporter is about accountability. Reporters are fired if they twist facts, plagiarize or simply make things up. Yes, you have the occasional Jason Blair, Janet Cooke and Stephen Glass. Bloggers are not held to the same standard.
Finally, reporters—even when writing about alleged rapists, murders, pedophiles, kidnappers and gang bangers—do not resort to personal insults or name-calling. Until bloggers are held to the same standard, blogging and journalism will never be the same.
Finally, reporters—even when writing about alleged rapists, murders, pedophiles, kidnappers and gang bangers—do not resort to personal insults or name-calling.
Hunter Thompson did.
Depends on what your goal is I suppose. But yes, blogs are more like editorials and less like straight reporting from a newsroom. Several conventions separate blogging from traditional journalism. Not the least of which, blogging is often written from a first person's perspective where straight news journalism would not be. Sort of why they call them personal blogs.
I too have a background in journalism and covered both as a writer and an editor my fair share of rape and murder stories among other things.
But I'm not covering some random news story here. I'm covering something that happened to me personally -- that is admittedly full of emotion on my part. My own goal is largely to make the SF MOMA a more hospitable place for the thousands of visitors and photographers who visit each year. Hopefully so that none will be subjected to the type of Simon Blint behavior that I experienced on Friday.
"My own goal is largely to make the SF MOMA a more hospitable place for the thousands of visitors and photographers who visit each year."
That's just too funny. One merely needs to go into Moma and see all the people taking pix unhassled. Wouldn't surpirse me if hundreds a day do it.
It's about behavior, attitude and taking responsibility, not about taking photos. I've taken lots of pix there - some really good and I have sold them. Never stopped or questioned...
Moma's a great place.
TH, Gonzo is laughing at you from above.
Thomas Hawk, the FOX NEWS of the internet
@Simon Read -
You are describing the way real journalism used to work.
If you think real journalism as a whole works this way today then you're too close to it.
I put as much or more trust into bloggers as I do any modern journalist. Most of my peer group is even worse - they refuse to read papers at all because of the obvious bias introduced at all stages of the process, starting with axes to grind by the journalist and ending with stories buried or promoted based upon advertiser's support or lack thereof.
What Thomas and all the other bloggers is doing is the start of the 21st century version of journalism.
I would love to go back to a time when I knew intuitively that all the steps you describe that go into unbiased journalism were being taken. But the fact remains that there are enough bad apples in the journalism food chain that one can't trust it any more than a good blog.
I completely agree with Simon Read's post above, and his own blogs on the topic.
Journalists are held to a Code of Ethics. If bloggers ever want to be taken seriously as journalists, and lose the reputation of "guy in his mom's basement, typing away and watching his pit-stains grow", they need to get real, create their own Code, and hold one another to some standards. Here's the first one: Never slander someone in a major blog b/c your wittle feewings got hurt and you decided to have a temper tantrum. Thomas Hawk is about to be taken to the bank for everything he's got, and I personally can't wait to see it. Thomas, your wife is right to be scared. Your little anger management/ego mania problem just opened a world of financial hurt for the two of you.
Journalism is the business of objectively presenting facts, of making calls and conducting in-depth interviews to get to the heart of a story.
That's hysterical. I think it's just hilarious that you just posted about how non-biased and fact-based "real" journalists are, immediately before it's revealed that NBC was broadcasting faked video of the Olympic opening ceremonies.
Yeah, whatever. The NYT runs a front-page story about a supposed affair of John McCain's, and then refuses to even investigate John Edwards's affair, leaving them to be scooped by the National Enquirer. 60 Minutes presents *obviously* forged documents as factual. The Mohammed al-Dura and Tuvia Grossman stories were both revealed as purest bullshit. Photoshopped and staged photos from the Middle East abound. And you sit there and say that real journalism fact-checks everything and is without bias.
Yeah, and there's really a Santa Claus, too.
"So why did this post resonate so strongly with everyone?"
Mostly because the Internet is a ravenous beast - one who falls with slavering jaws on any hint of controversy.
However it is mostly sound and fury signifying nothing.
if I were you I'll call all SF photographers to come along with you with their cameras to take pictures of the SF Moma and see what happens this time.
Bring a printed copy of their website stating photography is allowed.
Will they call the marines to bring all of you out?
Unfortunately I am not in SF but I support you on this.
ciao
Vale
liveon35mm
@Anonymous hinting at lawsuits against Thomas.
SFMOMA would be committing suicide if they sued Thomas or continued to employ Mr. Blint if he sues Thomas. There are powerful people watching this and the corporate donation train to SFMOMA will be in trouble if/when a concerted effort to stop all donations happens because Thomas was sued. Corporations hate controversy and having their name even in the same room as a SFMOMA/Blint -vs- Thomas Hawk fight is not seen as building their brand through philanthropy.
Ironically I was at SFMOMA this past Thursday and had a similar experience.
I had decided to grab a bite to eat before heading on to see the exhibits. While there, I read the pamphlet that is given to guests to explain museum policies and the map. I was pleased to see that SFMOMA allowed photography as long as flash was not used.
Not a problem, I though, as I generally turn off my flash as I like the look of natural light better.
I then eagerly headed up into the museum. On the second landing I looked over the atrium and decided to take a photo. My plan was to take a photo of the unique architecture towards the upper part of the room (and thus no people would have been in my photography).
I also have a DLSR. The one thing I hate about my SLR over the old point-and-shoot I use to use is that, with the point-and-shoot you could take photos and not many people would notice or be bothered by it. But with a SLR you stand out.
I had taken my camera out of the bag and was just turning off my flash settings when a man next to me with a point-and-shoot takes a photo of the atrium and his flash goes off.
Not a second later two museum guards descend on ME. They start yelling that I was not allowed to take photos at all (contrary to what the posted information stated). I tried to explain that I hadn't even taken a photo yet and mentioned that my flash was off. But they just said that I must put away my camera "Or else you will be told to leave."
Meanwhile a man with a camera phone snaps a photo and walks away, while the guy who's flash went off scurries away and lets me take the blame.
I was so appalled at the way I was treated that I turned around and left the museum.
After hearing your ordeal I now think that SFMOMA is discriminatory of patrons with SLR cameras because we are more noticeable.
I would understand if their photography policy stated that SLR cameras are considered "professional quality" and therefore ban them as other venues do, but without specifically stating that how would anyone know?
To Eric in SF:
A man was publicly slandered and had his character defamed on a major blog. That has absolutely nothing to do with the MOMA. It was TH's decision to take his anger-management issues public in a grotesque and childish assault on a man's character that will bring him down, and it's Blint's right to defend himself however he sees fit. He's obviously had the class to stay out of this thus far, but I sincerely hope he has his day in court. It's not MOMA vs. Hawk. It's Blint vs. Peterson. Let Peterson take responsibility man-to-man, in person--not hidden behind his gang of cyber-thugs.
Aggressive paparazzi have thrown a large net over all of us and we are now judge by their actions.
Buh?
"One of the first museums in the United States to recognize photography as a legitimate art form, SFMOMA possesses one of the oldest and most distinguished photography collections in the world."
http://www.sfmoma.org/collections/collections_photography.html
@Anonymous (one of the many)
In continental Europe, since decades, you have the "right to your picture" unless you are a high-ranking politician, show star, athlete or you show up in a "historic event"...
Not true for all of "continental Europe" I'm afraid. Several countries (incl. Denmark, where I live) have a different policy and quite simple law when it comes to photography: I've you're in a public place, photographers are allowed to take your picture, unless the picture is depicting you in some obscene manner (i.e. naked, semi-naked etc.). Of course the law has more nuances than that, but my description sums it up pretty well.
Sigh.
Mr Blint chose to engage in psudo combat with Mr Hawk.
Mr Blint chose to ignore his employers posted rules about photography.
Mr Blint chose to make the issue public instead of private, by yelling up from the floor in a public area.
Mr Blint underestimated Mr Hawks ability to publicize the issue.
I read this as Blint 0 Hawk 4
Mr Blint clearly made a number of mistakes in this encounter, like starting it in the first place, no matter how many great things he has done for SFMOMA , it doesn't excuse him from being as asshole for no reason in this situation.
Knowing then what they know now, there is little doubt Mr Blint would have reacted differently, That alone should indicate who was out of line.
To Eric in SF:
I am well aware that many people doubt what they read in the newspapers. What I don't understand is how those same people can read a blog post on an issue that presents no opposing view point and simply take it as gospel.
The mob mentality on display here has been ludicrous.
To the whole blogging versus journalism...
"It´s about the journalism of attachment.
Monstering is about giving something back to these bastards, these people whom we somehow let run our goddamn lives for us. Giving them a taste of what it means to be us. Every law that curbs my basic human freedoms; every lie about the things I care for; every crime committed against me by their politics - that´s what makes me get up and hound these fuckers, and I'll do it until the day I die, or until my brain dries up or something.
That's what we achieve. We show them they're accountable. We show them that just as they try to herd us back into cages of mediocrity, we can chase them back to fucking Hell with the Truth.
It´s the journalism of attachment. It´s caring about the world you report on. Some people say that's bad journalism, that there should be a detached, cold, unbiased view of the world in our new media. And if that's what you want, there are security cameras everywhere that you could watch tapes of.
I want to see humans talking about human life, personally. I want to see people who give a shit about the world."
-- Spider Jerusalem, Transmetropolitan
As a current employee of the SFMOMA I can say that this is just a symptom of a larger problem. Simon is a jerk, everyone at the SFMOMA knows this, but nothing is being done. The museum management has become more and more elitist, believing themselves to be beyond reproach and routinely abusing customers with no regard to the impact it will have. Simon treated you that way because he knows he can. He may have to scrape together a totally insincere apology but he will not be formally reprimanded in any way.
GET A LIFE! All of you!
Heh, why is it that so many of the people against Thomas comment anonymously?
It's just the MOMA's policy toward photography. I've been there and their security guards are incredibly rude and aggressive. I wouldn't be surprised if this culture of a$$holeness comes from the top. I say boycott the fascists.
People keep saying "we're on your side, Thomas! Photography is not a crime!" Um, that's not what this is really about for most people negative towards TH. Personally, I have a problem with how he reported the problem. I don't care if Simon is a jerk or not, this was handled in a childish, vengeful way.
And people are posting anonymously because of fear of retribution from the mob mentality of many (but not all) here.
Poor anonymous Thomas Hawk. Kicked out of a private institution. Imagine the nerve!
I have taken a photo or two in my time (maybe I can hit one million like you!) actually, its my job. I know that when I am out working and when work takes me somewhere that is not a public sidewalk, road, park..etc etc...that I NEED to get permission from whoever is in charge before I can shoot. AND that even if I HAVE permission when they tell me I need to leave, that means, I need to leave. You know, because the space is their's and therefore they make the rules. You want to go take pictures without someone kicking you out of somewhere, then stick to a sidewalk.
Really, you sound like a teenager that feels like the world is out to get him because a mall cop kicked him out of the mall just for hanging out in one spot for too long.
You have my support, Thomas. Keep strong through the internet sh*tstorm and never stop fighting the fight for shedding light on these instances and educating the masses. Someone always has to push to see where the line is and people appreciate trailblazers more often than not.
I have actually worked with Simon Blint and can't stand a man with a "Napoleon" complex. He's lazy, isn't customer service oriented and I have no idea why he still has his job...oh yeah and he's a jerk when you have to deal with him on a professional level...so why on earth would he be "nice" to a customer?
All of the Blint supporters act as if:
1) it is out of line to publicize an event in which a person feels the service they received was inadequate;
2) being on private property automatically neuters an individual regardless of the situation;
3) TH's complaints somehow mitigate the fact that he did eventually comply and was successfully thrown out. In other words, you try to paint him as being in the wrong when in fact, he was escorted from the premises, and the tone and tenor of what was not a very long discussion was dictated by Blint. All said, it looks like the rights of the SF MOMA were applied appropriately. So why bitch?
You Blint supporters may have some more traction if you actually had a goal in complaining. As things stand, your "arguments" are mainly that TH should recognize that he must accept all terms of all private entities on their premises and all changes without argument, TH shouldn't complain, shouldn't speak up, and that he's just a bad man. And most of you do it anonymously. (From the same IP address, I'll wager. Quite possibly from Blint's own computer.)
So, put up some good arguments. There might be plenty to be had. Just stop the whining and get down to brass tack and make some real material claims against TH that aren't of the variety "Shut up! It was private property!".
Mr. Hawk, I am a 24-year-old photojournalist just out of college, and initially I was all for your cause.
I go nowhere without my D80 these days, and I have also been subject to unnecessary and sometimes illegal public judgment for the size of my camera.
I've been following this for a few days and something is really bothering me:
If the issue was really about the photos you took, why wouldn't he be willing to review them? If you weren't looking to stir the pot, why did you keep shooting shots of Blint and his security detail?
This is probably the journalist in me, sir, but I have to ask one more question:
If you were really the victim, why did you take this to your blog instead of the authorities? Didn't it occur to you that a blog would only hurt any legal case you could have built here?
Now your crusade is responsible for the man's photo, e-mail and physical home addresses being displayed publicly, potentially even putting him and/or his family in danger all because you were "wronged."
I wanted to get behind you, Mr. Hawk, but enough is enough. It's been days and you still haven't drawn the line, and that's the kind of behavior I can't support.
you big big baby
LWPhD: What exactly is anonymous blogger Thomas Hawk's argument? Seriously. That he was kicked out of a private institution and he shouldn't have been because the precious rules said he could take photos? Is that it? Because you know, those rules aren't exactly set in stone, as anonymous blogger Thomas Hawk learned. Whining about them, isn't going to change that. In other words, this whole 'incident' that anonymous blogger Thomas Hawk has created is MOOT because it is private property. Thats how private property works. The people in charge of said property, control it. Amateur photographers do not. Even if that amateur photographer bought a ticket to be there.
And it is nice of you to try and pigeonhole everyone that realizes that anonymous blogger Thomas Hawk has no leg to stand on as a supporter of Blint, and to suggest that most of the posts to that effect are probably coming from him directly. That...is just brilliant.
So I am going to turn it around and say all these pro Hawk posts are probably just created with one of anonymous blogger Thomas Hawk's many persona's. There, see how easy and ridiculous that is.
Get over yourself anonymous blogger Thomas Hawk. You aren't that important, and you can't change private property laws. Honestly, this all just sounds like an adult version of a teenager whining because he was kicked out of the mall by those 'fascist pig' mall cops. Which by the way, is really no different. Why don't you go take pictures in a mall next, and then blog about it.
One thing people seem to not take into account here... this is a personal blog. Shouldn't someone be able to vent their frustrations on their own blog? Is Thomas somehow unable to share the public experiences of his life because he has a broad readership?
If I went to the grocery store near my house and was treated to public humiliation from the manager there, don't you think I would blog on it? I know my social networking friends would want to hear about it.
I suppose all of you out there complaining about how Thomas maligned this "poor guy who was just doing his job" have never complained about a perceived wrong in your own blog.
Thomas is a tireless proponent of photographer's rights, making a fuss where the rest of us just say "Aw, shucks, Mr. Man, we didn't need to take that picture anyway." Since this is a personal mission for him, he'd be failing us if he didn't make an issue of this.
THOMAS HAWK, IT'S TIME TO CALL OFF THE GOONS.
I'm a friend of Simon Blint's. His home address has now been printed on several websites and, because of the hatred whipped up against him, he can't go home.
Thomas, regardless of what happened at the museum, it's time to call this off. A MAN'S SAFETY IS AT STAKE.
I'm a friend of Simon Blint's. His home address has now been printed on several websites and, because of the hatred whipped up against him, he can't go home.
Simon, one commentor posted Simon Blint's home address on my blog and I deleted the comment. I saw that it had also been posted on Boing Boing as well where it was also deleted. What other sites are you talking about?
I certainly do not condone nor support people publishing Simon Blint's address. If his address is published on other sites I'd encourage you or him to contact the website in question and ask to have it removed. I'd be happy to contact any such website with the same request if you thought it would help or if your request was not honored.
Personally I'm disappointed that there has been no response from Simon Blint or the SF MOMA on this matter. I think that they more than anything could offer alot to quell the situation.
I have personally contacted several people at the SF MOMA, as have others, and have heard from no one there on this matter. I think part of why the tempest has continued and is so strong is because people are looking for some kind of reconciliation on this matter.
Hi Thomas . . . what sites the address appeared on, I couldn't tell you. But it's apparent that in the very short time it was up, people made note of it.
Something for the backs of our "Photography is not a crime" shirts:
Dont' Blint me bro!
Not sure why I'm feeding the trolls, but here goes nothing:
Fughedaboutit: FYI, repeating something over and over doesn't magically make it true. Specifically, "anonymous blogger Thomas Hawk". I don't get it... *I* know who he is, and I've never met him in person. Did you happen to read the lengthy "About me" section on the front page of his blog?
An author's pseudonym does not equal "anonymous", if it's made totally clear who he is. The question is, why isn't it clear to you?
Here's the definition of anonymous:
1 : not named or identified [an anonymous author] [they wish to remain anonymous]
2 : of unknown authorship or origin [an anonymous tip]
3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability
As I see it, neither of these are true in his case. His is named, and he has been identified (with relative ease, in fact, by his own doing).
A reasonable person should understand this.
The guy with the camera is now shown to be someone with a blog who can publically name you, call you an asshole and trash you online if he feels aggrieved.
How will security, staff and management of _anywhere_ which currently allows photography view what has happened?? I suggest they will say 'it is'nt worth the risk lets just stop photography altogether'.
If I was a member of staff of SF Moma I'd certainly be asking them to review their photography policy because maybe the next guy with a camera who does'nt like being told what to do will slag me off on their blog - with photos.
The worst thing is there is nothing you can do to undo this situation. Your bad day out, and blogging angry will have a longterm effect on photographers worldwide.
You have given all the people who allow/tolerate photography on their property one bloody good reason not to permit it.
Hmmm... sounds like two dicks had a pissing match. Nothing new.
SFMOMA has published a response at http://www.sfmoma.org/press/pressroom.asp?id=371&do=recent