Female photographers in restricted/dangerous areas

When you as a woman want to go into an area for men only there is absolutely nothing you can do to protect yourself, nothing, and you can not depend on anyone else to defend you either. You not only put yourself in serious life threatening risk, but you put others in life threatening situations also. You are seriously taking your life into jeopardy when you try to cover events like this, and you are jeopardizing the life of others, that is the one thing you do have to remember. No story is worth that. How would you feel if your actions cost someone else their life?

It is a shame that gender based discrimination happens, but it is a fact in this world. Saudi Arabia finally gave women the right to vote, but they still don't have the right to drive by themselves, and the King recently intervened in the sentencing of 10 lashes to a woman that was ticketed, and convicted of driving a car by herself. She did this to start an effort to get this discriminatory law changed, and had every intention of taking her 10 lashes. She will most likely commit the same offence again to bring world attention to this law. Is your reason for wanting to cover your event for the same reasons? Do you in fact want to change what prevents you from being their?

Discrimination to women happens, and unless you want to be the martyr willing to give up your life for some unjust cause with no guarantee doing so will have any effect, and also risk the life of others, then don't take those kind of risks. Your life has to be worth more than that to someone else other than yourself.

There is absolutely no story important enough for you to put your live in jeopardy to cover it. Sure you would like to be the only woman covering an event like this, but ask yourself why you are doing it. You can not come up with any answer that is worth the life threatening risk to yourself, and the serious physical risk to others just to satisfy your ego, as in my opinion I think the reason might be.

Seriously, it is not worth the risk to yourself, and others by even being there let alone trying to photographically record it.

Thank you Steve for your responce and advice.
I opened this subject as I thought I may probably be not alone wondering about this and it may be relevant for other women too.

I did not go there alone, had a company of one journalist, a man. Whatever...
For me it is not about "being the only woman covering such story" at all, please do not understand me wrong. I think my desire to take pictures is originated not from the ego at all...
When it comes to such situations - I am only curious about all that and want to share and how I wish I was a man when it comes to such gender restrictions!..
Or at least I wish there was any kind of opportunity to be percepted neutrally.
But I completely agree with you. I had similar discussion with a friend once who told me that a woman in a military zone as a journalist is okay and safe if she is in a military uniform... I argued with him.
All that is really kinda dubious as we live in such a "man's world".
I wish I was a man, indeed. However, at least as a woman I can probably go to places where you guys can't.

I think I should listen to your sober advice, remember that "curiosity killed a cat" and be more careful and reasonable.
I once heard about a male journalist who dressed as a woman in abaya and went to Mekka and when those saudi guys figured it out he was executed...

Thanks again for your advice!

Regards,

Zoya,

the good news is that you did a great and impressive story with images that document the Hasidic event in great detail. So maybe we should be grateful to you for sharing your experience with us and how you did manage to report the event.

But of course, as Steve and many other photographers at Demotix will tell you, no story is worth being threatened for covering it, let alone getting injured or worse.

Speaking for myself, I never had to face such a situation and although I am a man discrimination is always discrimination. However, I have been in a couple of situations with a religious context were being appropriately accredited saved me from a bit of bother.

So to answer your question, I would approach the situation in one of two ways.

When there is such an important event I always try to get in touch with the organisers and ask to speak to someone in charge of the press. And if they tell me that they don't have anyone, I try and get to speak to someone who can tell me how I can report the event with the organiser's OK. Getting names and details is important, especially if they give you the OK. And even when you have full accreditation it is always wise to know the person in charge; in a recent event although I had full accreditation, the security guards stopped me from taking photos. Luckily, I had earlier asked who was in charge of the press in this particular location (there were many locations) and when I told the security guard that Mr XX sais it was OK, they gave the royal treatment.

So if they have a press officer try and fix something with them and if not with someone who is quite relevant in the organisation.

Of course, you will now tell me that these people have never heard of or know what a press officer is. This, of course, is your Ace card. You can always tell them that because you will be reporting to Demotix in London it would be normal practice for their reporters to seek accreditation from the organisation. and that it was important for you to report the event with the permission of the organisers. etc etc.

Many times, organisations are hostile towards local media and not necessarily the foreign media: despite the efforts of some politician who are hell bent in changing the good name of western media. Maybe speaking to someone who might have some experience of the UK or US might help quite a bit in this specific case.

Of course, there is always the risk that they might say no and mean it, in which case you would be in an awkward situation for a few of their events but don't give up. People change, new people come along, young people take over etc etc.

Of course, when you approach these people you would not turn up empty handed so to speak. You give them a list of some of the recent reports from Demotix on the Hasidic community say in the UK, USA, Israel etc. They might still not like you, but they cannot say that Demotix is not a legitimate news organisation. So if they accept that Demotix is a legitimate news organisation, you've got half the problem solved.

I see that you have five stories on Demotix, I suggest you work very hard to make that at least ten stories so you can apply for the press pass. And if it is desperately urgent make your case for a press card with on of the editors at Demotix: see how to contact us section.

The other way, which is also the long and hard way, is to start building contacts within the community and reporting about the community whenever you have a chance of doing it safely and without any fear or danger; you should be doing this anyway. If you ask me, forget the men, and focus on the women. Try and report their side of the story etc. Maybe one day the men might accept you as a legitimate reporter and let you report their side. Note; this might take a few years to materialise.

I suggest that in the meantime you do a few press conferences by politicians (if you can) to practice how to be patient and to wait aimlessly for things to happen!!

If people see that you are a legitimate reporter they might be prepared to give you a chance. And by legitimate reporter I mean that you report on all communities in a fair and objective manner. This is to make sure that people respect your independence and that you are reporting news and not political or religious causes.

But the bottom line is always as Steve says, nothing is worth getting hurt or injured for.

best

Lawrence

Thank you Lawrence for your comprehensive response!

Well, Lawrence, I´m not really convinced, that You understood the point. Zoya wrote:

"I was told by a local security officer (who became very tensed himself when saw me) that being there may be dangerous, as one year ago a crowd of Hasidic men attacked and beated a Hasidic woman and this security guy was one of those who tried to fight her off from them."

So I guess, that the woman, which the security officer tried to save, was attaced by a crowd of frenetic participants of this event. People going to attac a woman instead of call the security to guide her away, would hardly be impressed by an accredition letter. And that´s not said to blame this men: look how european stadiums are equiped and how many armed policemen are required to get the players and referees save - and how often even this failed yet ...

Zoya, I think you should look at the other side of being a woman in such places. There are lots of places men are not allowed, there are many stories that men can't shoot. look at the work of Paula Lerner, Ami Vitale, Linsey Addario, Stephanie Sinclair, Andrea Bruce, Kale Alford, and I'm being surely forgetting someone and being unfair. Amazing women that shoot incredible stories that most likely can't be shot by men.
So, yes, being a woman may suck in some places, but in those very places, being a woman can make a difference, and perhaps you should focus on that stories that need to be told and it takes a woman to tell them.

Not necessarily because she was a woman, but a female person I knew was recently killed along with another photographer a very short time back for going back into Syria when all foreign journalists were told they would be killed if they were found inside Syrian borders. She did not have her story yet, and returned to Rom ignoring the threat.

From unconfirmed reports the Syrian government traced her satellite phone signal she was using to broadcast a live report, and targeted it with rocket fire. She, and those around her were killed. This is the same technique the US was using initially to try and kill Bin Ladin.

As a freelancer she put herself into a position to get the story, but it cost her her life, after she was warned, and already on her way out of Syria. She just had to turn back, and it cost her, but she did get the story. In my opinion it was not worth it, and her belief that her satellite phone was safe to transmit on was, from unconfirmed reports, what was targeted by the government with rocket fire. She in my opinion also got someone else killed because of her actions.

She was a pro, but still got people killed from what she thought was a somewhat safe situation. From other information the person with her would not leave her as a woman on her own inside Syria so went with her back in. Did her actions get him killed?

Peter if you read my comments again you will see that I suggest that one should always try to get some official accreditation from the organizers.

I accept that maybe in Zoya's situation they might never have thought of accreditation. And as Patricio says being a woman might have it's own advantage. As I suggested maybe Zoya might want to build contacts within this group so that in the future they might look out for her during the event.

As for @peter ".......would hardly be impressed by an accredition letter." In a case I was involved in, a crowd was fast turning hostile against me and another photographer, but as soon as I showed them my accreditation, the same people who a few seconds before wanted to have a go at me, not only started making space for me to take photos, but protected me from others who started objecting to my photography.

Don't forget that doing photojournalism is dangerous anywhere never mind Syria or Afghanistan; we have discussed this many times on the forum. The bottom line is that we have to be there and we have to decide whether it is worth risking our life or injury.

As @Steve story seems to suggest it is probably not worth it. Especially if it is not an exclusive story. probably the exclusive story today about Syria would be to photograph Syrian officials entering a bank in Europe or same officials with other officials from another country or the like. This will probably be more useful for Syrians now than getting killed at the front. And it is no less dangerous nor less risky.

best
Lawrence

Lawrence, I don't think in that part of the world an accreditation would do anything at all, less if you talk a crowd and a woman. What she needs (actually we all do in that situation)is a good fixer, a person who knows the place inside out and in whom we photographers trust.
I think the best advise for Zoya would be to get in touch with other female with experience in that field. I got to know a couple of those I mentioned briefly but enough to know they're helpful and good people, they are in Facebook, and will probably be willing to give some useful advise.
I add some minutes later: sorry for posting a link to another forum, but I think Lightstalkers (http://www.lightstalkers.org/) is still THE place to ask for this kind of assistance, lots of members are experienced shooters under this tricky conditions.

patricio i would agree with you that maybe the idea of accreditation might be an alien concept in this location. but i don.t know this place at all so i.m giving them the benefit of the doubt. my point is more or less like yours, get someone to look out for you. the reason why i suggest someone linked to the event is because people are more likely to know them and behave accordingly. one thing i am assuming is that one does not intend to do any negative reporting. the idea of getting advice or even go with someone else is ok but unless this other person is known by the group the chances are you.re going to be alone when it really matters.

Tha's why I say what's needed is a fixer. There's no way an outsider will gain access to certain places, you don't earn that trust by signing a paper or with any letter of accreditation from a media. Getting to know someone from the organization of an event may work or not, I really don't think anything related with religion or faith outside the big western cities (and not even in some of those...) works that way. I mean, certain religions don't give a damn about people from ouside wanting to know, understand or whatever: it's their religion, and they're willing to kill or die for it, they don't like voyeurs.
Besides, assuming any of these celebrations does have an organization that cares about the press and photographers, and they have press facilities and all, you'll still be considered a voyeur, they don't care about their celebration appearing on the NYT... You won't gain any access overnight, you need someone who knows people and people trusts that person: it that person who's got access and knows the way around things. I haven't personally been to any such a place, but have talked with enough photographers covering that areas and all say the same: you put your life in the hands of your fixer, and your work will be as good as the fixer you have on the ground (there are other variables, but a fixer can be, literally, a life saver).

patricio we.re more or less saying the same thing. basically you need someone who not only knows their way around but more important who is know by those organising the event. in this particular case being a Jewish festival i would assume they would have some contact with other overseas communities for example Israel who might be more up to date about the media. but as i say i have no idea. it is one avenue to consider. the other thing is that we don.t know the background to what happened in the case of the woman being attacked.

Soya, you may have already seen this, but if not, it's well worth a read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17288577

Lots of useful advise.

Well, it´s a shame, that over the years are killed hundreds of journalists. If it would be postulatet, that the story, which costs their life, wasn´t worth it, that would mean to blame them for unnecessary wasting their lifes. Guys, these colleagues weren´t criminals, who killed their next and then themselfes, so we have to respect the old german saying, that about a death is to be talked nothing but good. If they decided themselfes, that´s necessary to cover these events, their decissions becames set in stone.

We should think about, why journalists go out and report about wars and the crimes taking place meanwhile? Is it worth to risk the life and the life of overs to report about that, or should we let the warmongers do, what they´re pleasant to do?

So if we claim, that her life was wasted unnecessary, so there are only two lessons being learned:

1. It cann´t be anymore an "internal affair", if a government is going to kill the citizen of the own country.

2. Editors and media customers have to wait until a story can be wired without risk. If it becomes common, that satellite phones are tracked for get the reporting journalists killed, we cann´t expect anymore to get all reports within minutes after such an event took place.

Sorry to go off topic.

That is the problem though, there are some countries that strongly think, so much so that they block outside intervention, that it is only an internal affair within that country, and should be handled by that country only, as Russia, and China have done with their votes on the UN security council concerning Syrian intervention.

It has also been the case with Myanmar, North Korea, China, Senegal, and a host of other sovereign countries. Intervention by outside countries is not the norm. To try and report on the atrocities is the norm, and to do that journalists do get killed, and seriously injured regularly.

Is it right for a female reporter to be treated differently than a male reporter? Is it right for a male reporter to accompany a female journalist into a war zone purely to protect her? In the same situation if it was a male going back he would be on his own, and recognized as being able to take care of himself. Does she bear the responsibility for his life because of this need to protect her? That is what happened in the case of Marie, and the French photographer that went with her. He was only allegedly there to protect her as a female. Should she have been concerned with his life in her actions going back in?

There are situations that a female goes into that are much more dangerous to those around her than if it was a male. Does she need to be professionally responsible to those around her, and not risk their lives in the situation simply because she is female, or should she push her right to equality, and risk the lives of those around her? Is that professional action on her part? Is getting the story worth getting those around you killed?

Well, You didn´t made the point yet, that You´re still confusing cause and effect. There is no way to blame a journalist for been killed and with her/him the attendants, if the journalist didn´t violate basic rules of conduct. She didn´t run into an area, where snipers shoot at anything that moves and made someone to follow her to take her back.

She used a telephone, whose signal was detected and she did that to report about crime, that she hasn´t iniciated. In such a case anybody would be killed being at this phone and it´s also obvious, that a foreign reporter wiring the report in such a situation, wouldn´t be at a place homeless in a radius of some hundred metres to make sure, that nobody else is killed by his phone call (usually there are some people being interviewed).

It´s very uncommon to blame somebody for be killed by using a satellite phone and for the fact, that the people around shared this fate. It would be common to blame the officers, who fired the missile at this phone, because they knew exactly what they were doing - we clearly talk about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime
instead of a natural disaster and so there´s only the point, that it was committed and not, how could be an once victime less be involved.

Steve, from where does the information tha Rèmi Ochlik was there to protect Marie Colvin come? I've read lots of reports and posts from people who knew the guy, this is the first time I read something of the sort.
Also, you're sort of assuming Marie colvin was the only reporter reporting from the ground, and it was not the case. I can't imagine all the other reporters not delivering their stories, so the idea of them being targetted because of the use of a sat phone doesn't sound too convincing to me either. And if that was the case, it could have been her sat phone or someone elses, every single journalist, be it western or local, is there for a reason, and that reason is to report from the field, and they are aware of the risks.

Something worth reading: http://pdnpulse.com/2012/02/remembering-13-unsung-heroes-of-photojournalism.html

Linsey Addario on being a woman in conflict zones.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/09/as-journalists-become-targets-themselves-the-need-to-bear-witness-continues.html

This is well worth watching.

'No Woman's Land: On the Frontlines with Female Reporters' view here: http://reut.rs/Asxitd

The launch of the first book solely dedicated to the safety of women journalists. BBC presenter Lyse Docet leads a panel hosted by the International News Safety Institute