Al-Quds Day Protests in London

Hey guys, I think that this comment thread has gone on long enough and is long past being productive.

There is no justification for accusing other contributors of bias in their reporting; that is something which we're constantly watching out for, and we wouldn't publish people's coverage if we thought it was deliberately slanted.

I've spoken to a couple of you on the phone this afternoon, and both sides have valid points; it's clear that journalists and photographers have been targeted by extreme groups of all stripes in the past, and that some might justifiably be afraid of being identified and targeted in response or retaliation for their reporting.

On the other hand, there is a strong case to be made for openness and honesty, particularly in a country like the UK. If you're at a controversial political event, you yourself can be photographed and identified without recourse to records of you that may exist on the internet, and when that happens it's significantly better to be identified as someone working for an impartial journalistic organisation, as Demotix aims to be, than as a lone, biased individual with a bone to pick.

This is an old journalistic chestnut and an argument which is never going to be resolved 100% one way or the other. What we at Demotix plan to do is discuss it internally, collect your views via the forums or some other method, and create some guidance documents as part of the training programme we will be introducing in the next few months.

In the meantime, we welcome constructive discussion of these issues, but we'd prefer if you avoid personal attacks on one another. We are all on the same side here, and we all want to minimise harm to you, the contributors, who after all are just trying to get your reporting on events of all kinds out to the world.

I'll cross post this to the forum threads on anonymity as well. More discussion on this topic will happen, but it obviously needs to be well structured and closely moderated to inhibit the kind of mud-slinging and acrimony that has characterised some posts here.

Howard agrees but still wants to be anonymous to Demotix as well as the public... who is Howard really? Why is he trying to hide appart from wanting anonymity to report on one particular group only.....

ok Howard, thank you for finally coming round to the position I have been arguing: "Demotix to have a database of contributors name/address/ phone details." As some of us have been arguing there is no reason to be anonymous to Demotix if you live in the UK and most of Europe.

Howard you write; My problem with Chris and Peter is that they are blasé about the issue.. On the contrary they are not being blasé at all. What they and I have been arguing is that if you want to be accepted as a bona fide professional photojournalist, having your photo on the profile will be seen as evidence that you are a bona fide journalist. But more importantly, not having a photo will neither give you any real security nor keep you anonymous especially if you are being biased in your reports.

Sure you have the right not to put up a photo on your profile, but we must ask ourselves, why would people want to single you out for "abuse"? The answer is simple, either you are filing some really hard hitting reports about the malaise of some groups, or you are being biased in your reporting.

Best

Lawrence

It is interesting that Howard says those who are saying no anonymity in the UK are " either born out of ignorance or naivety or maybe even both" yet all those objecting to Howard have decades of experience (each) across the world.

Also where the more experienced people were discussing extremist groups in general all Howard's posts relate to taking pictures of one particular group..... not that he is biased.

Hi folks, you might want to take a look at this forum response by Stephen on the issue of anonymity. He lays out our position on a few of the different issues you've been discussing here.

http://www.demotix.com/forum/serious-issue-about-photographers-idenity#comment-32775

Hi Peter, first of all let me say how much I enjoy your reports and your sharing of experience with the rest of us. Needless to say, that we can only be grateful that peers like you and Chris are prepared to share your experiences in photojournalism with us.

Peter you suggest that Howard should go somewhere else to discuss the issue of Anonymity. Indeed we have been discussing this in a topic I introduced: Serious issue about photographer's identity.

As far as I am concerned the bottom line is that photographers have to identify themselves to Demotix, and if one has a press card, there is no question about it.

In that discussion most are agreed that no one is asking that we must have a public identity available on line, but rather that Demotix must know the identity of photographers. (Please read carefully)

I am not going to repeat arguments in the community discussion here.

But I would like to ask Howard, how many times have you felt you were in a situation that it was best for your editor not know who you are? And I mean editor because we are talking about real life photojournalism and not a website were one puts up a few picture.

best

Lawrence

I have to say all the professionals I know say the same as Peter.

Re links to the middle east... my work there predates the web never mind digital cameras or Demotix which about 2 years old.. One day I will scan in all my images. However if you go to the Royal Geographical Society the library still contains my report of Kurdistan in 1988. Demotix is a NEWS library... pictures from 20+ years ago is not news.

Training. Well all the pros seem to think it is essential. There is a lot that is counter intuitive you can't just pick up on the fly. I tend to use the Reuters and RSF (www.rsf.org ) guides.

All the photographers I know are now campaigning for their moral rights - which include that of attribution - to be made mandatory. Newspapers and magazines put pressure on the government to get this requirement dropped from the last copyright act, but we are trying to get it back as a part of the changes in copyright being considered. I can't think of any reason why any photographer here would not want a credit using their real name - we just don't share what seem to me to be the irrational fears that you seem to have about groups like the EDL.

I think that banning anonymous contributions except in very exceptional circumstances is vital if Demotix want to be taken seriously. The only cases I can think of that might arise in the UK where anonymity might be required would be for photographers working undercover covering criminal activities using hidden cameras. You certainly never need it for working openly on UK streets.

I think there would be very few professional photographers who would not be in complete agreement with the views that Chris has expressed about this. I really can't see why things should be any different for other Demotix contributors. But if you want to continue to discuss this, I suggest you do so elsewhere, perhaps on the Demotix forums rather than launching a personal attack on Chris.

But if you don't even appreciate the need for some training for working in riot situations, then you certainly should not be doing it. I have a copy of the IFJ's 'Live News - A survival guide for photojournalists (2003) beside my desk and now also a member's 'Tip Sheet' from the NUJ London Photographers branch on covering riots. Both very useful.

I was amused by :-

>If you or anyone else decides to take photos of rioters and put them on Demotix knowing that you have your own photo on your profile it puts you at risk!! That's the reason for being anonymous! Cheez, I didn't think I needed to explain that.<

It is strange because most of the experienced Demoitix reporters who cover demonstrations including the EDL like Peter do have public Demotix profiles (and other public blogs, web sites etc) Also you may like to ponder that most of the professional press are well known to the demonstrators anyway. Your premise does not hold water. Also groups like the EDL don't need Demotix to find out who you are.

I can tell you that having your real name and picture is going to make very little difference to your safety. In fact in Peters case it seems the fact they knew who he was saved him....

Howard Your posts are all the justification needed to ban anonymous contributors to Demotix.

Howard you are as Peter has suggested talking rubbish.... there are many on here who are not anonymous who have been shooting fringe political groups, criminals. riots and even conflict /war situations over many decades and never needed to be anonymous on a web profile.

If you can see "them" they can see you and will work out who you are with or without an identifiable profile on Demotix. However Demotix must know who it's contributors are for it's own protection.

Howard your comments show that you are the one who is naive or biased. But after 4 decades of taking pictures across Europe and the Middle East I agree with Peter. There is a need for anonymity for reporters in dictatorships like Iran, China etc but there are no reasons for anonymity in the UK.

Next week I will be back out with the Police on some ASBO raids. No mask, no anonymous profiles..... just like last time.

As Peter, I and others have said (and demonstrated) you are protected by fair, honest and unbiased reporting. If you don't like that find something else to do. As it is Demotix are discussing this very point internally at the moment.

Howard, I've been photographing these guys and worse for years. I'm not naive, but very much a realist on such things.

My picture is on their pages. Along with all the other guys who photograph them seriously. They take our pictures while we are photographing them and post stuff about us on their forums and web sites. Some of them also read my articles and tell me what they think of them when I go to take their pictures.

But I think we either have to decide whether we want to live in a free country or not, and if we do I don't think there is any place for anonymity.

People in the march who did the the EDL were pointing at them and laughing because there were so few and they looked rather silly. Previous years when I've photographed the confrontations between the EDL, Iranian groups and the Al Quds march things have been a lot angrier and a lot more tense and they were almost close enough to touch with just a line of police (and photographers) in between and I think the worst that actually happened was that people spat at each other. Sunday things were very calm, probably because the EDL realised they were totally outnumbered.

At Walthamstow a few weeks back there were no barriers between the considerably more radical MAC marching and ENA supporters who stood, some chanting similar taunts. Not even a barrier, just thin line of police. Stewards said ignore them and the marchers did. No reason to suppose it would have been any different on Sunday.

As to the riots quite a few of my friends were attacked, had cameras stolen or broken, including some guys with plenty of experience in working in riot and similar situations. Being anonymous would not have helped them! But of course it was right for them to take pictures and publish them.

I think there are very few of those who post to Demotix who should have gone to take photographs. I assessed the risks, decided I did not have the necessary equipment or backup and stayed home. If they had been in my neighbourhood I might have decided differently, but unless you've had suitable training you don't realise the risks in covering such events. It is also a situation where you need a real press card both in order to stay safe yourself and so as not to endanger others who may have to come to your aid.

At the very least Demotix should have full details of ALL it's reporters. Public Anonymity on the tog's profile may be needed for SOME people for safety ie Iran, China etc but I can't see it ever being needed in the UK . Your protection is honest fair and balanced reporting.

Howard, I think we need to stand in the open and not to hide. Certainly not to allow ourselves to be scared by such threats. All of us who have seriously covered groups like the EDL are well known to them and anonymity serves no useful purpose. Photographers - or some of them - need anonymity in Iran (for example) but not here.

We live in a free society and people have a right to demonstrate, and the police should respect that. They should also take action against anyone inciting racial hatred. While I was close enough to hear them the one or two individuals who started offensive chants about Muslims were immediately told to stop by others present, who told them that they didn't want the press to be able to accuse them of racism. But if people were chanting things like that the police should have certainly threatened them with arrest.

The police have to draw a balance. I don't think there would have been any great trouble in this case had they been allowed a more reasonable position, not least because there were so few EDL. And it was a well-behaved demonstration with quite a few stewards as well as police to keep order.

Sorry, I was referring to the comment by Chris Hills

I fail to see the connection. Those who do not turn up fear the consequences not the ones who turn up. There is no reason not to photograph those who do turn up or talk to them, as we photograph ourselves and we talk to people and we write about the events. What are you on about exactly??

Chris, thanks for your comments.

I've covered the EDL for some years, and they know me well - I get quite a few personal comments from them and other right wing groups whenever I photograph them, and have been named by them as someone who should be attacked (though on the main occasion they did so they had actually blamed me for something another Demotix contributor had written about them, and I did get a partial apology.)

Some of them also recognise that I've tried to cover them fairly even though I make my disagreement with them on many issues clear. A few have even stepped in to defend me a couple of times when I've been threatened at events.

I generally do report the gist of what they say and where I think they have been badly treated by the police - as on Sunday when they were penned more or less out of sight - I'll say so too.

I think there have to be very special reasons for people to be allowed to contribute material anonymously, and that the requirements for this are very seldom if ever met in the UK for general news coverage like this.

I'd like Demotix to exercise proper control over the quality of the work - pictures and text - on the site.

I was busy photographing the counter-demonstration at Trafalgar Square and the rally didn't interest me greatly. It certainly didn't fill the square, but that takes rather a lot of people.

There were quite a few photographers who were up on the plinth there taking pictures of the crowd, and I imagine there will be pictures elsewhere on Demotix. The IHRC say 6000 attended but I think 2-3000 is more likely, and some will have found better things to do than listen to the speeches at the end of the march.

You get a few glimpses of the crowd on PressTV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/195101.html
but it isn't an impressive report. I didn't see them in Portland Place and their report starts at Oxford Circus. They have a few distant moments of the EDL pen and mention but don't show "extreme secular Iranians."

Hi Potkin you say

When did the police tell you not to take our photos? what crap excuse are you coming up with now?

Then you say.....

I hope you realise why very few Iranians turn up for counter protests on Quds day. The regime fully cover this march with their state TV reporters/informants and you can imagine the consequences

You can't have it both ways... It sounds as though the Policeman and Peter were correct.

So do you have any pictures from the end of the march at Trafalgar Square? May be we can estimate numbers from that. I have posted one on my blog, which suggests the numbers this year were considerably less. Thanks for the info on the CPGB guy on the bike with his flag. I always get confused with who is people's front for Judea and who is Judean People front with these 'useful idiots' or fringes of a finge as you correctly call them. By the way, do you have a picture of him? I hope you realise why very few Iranians turn up for counter protests on Quds day. The regime fully cover this march with their state TV reporters/informants and you can imagine the consequences

Peter very well said! In the forum we are discussing the fact that there seem to be a lot of political activists and those with an axe to grind on Demotix usually with a completely anonymous profile.... both to the world and to Demotix. Demotix has no more idea who these people are than the rest of us.

Several (mainly those covering the EDL) have said they need to be anonymous for their own safety. As you manage to cover these fringe groups despite having your real name and picture "everywhere" their argument (for the UK at least) does not hold water.

As you say there is a big difference between [photo] journalism and writing a blog. Your Journalism is much appreciated by many of us as something to aspire to. As for the Political blog stories..... we can do without them as it detracts from Demotix.

Sorry, from you comments I mistook you for someone else I met later that afternoon.

Yours is a laughably inaccurate account, although I agree with most of your comments about the Iranian regime - if you read my other stories here and elsewhere you will know I have covered a number of protests by Iranians against it. But writing a blog (which I also do) is very different from reporting an event, and the emphasis here has to be on getting the actual facts right.

I've been estimating numbers in marches for perhaps 30 years, and up to around 800 people I have a very simple method. I stand in one place and count them as they walk past.

Larger marches - such as this one - I stop counting when I get to 800 and then try to estimate how many times that there are in the length of the whole march. Sunday the first 800 was around a third of the march, so my estimate was 2-3000, so I wrote 'several thousand.' It's always best by the way to make the count not at the beginning of the march but somewhere in the middle as some people join late (there were a lot still coming as this march set off) or leave before the end.

Asking a policeman is no way to get any sensible number, and the "300 max" you quote is risible to anyone who actually stood and watched the protest go by on Regent St or Haymarket. I thought the senior officer who stopped me for a short talk as I stepped out into the north bound carriageway of Portland Place at 14.02 was talking nonsense - and I make that clear - but it happened and I reported it accurately, as well as going on to take over 30 pictures of the roughly 10 'Free Iran' protesters, three of which accompanied my article, including two clearly showing the messages on your placards - in the third the text included is simply 'Free Iran'. Probably more coverage than it deserved, but then I'm sympathetic to your views.

I also make very clear in the article that the IHRC is funded by Iran, and that many of the placards had messages of support for Hizbullah. As I've done every year. As you say, one noticeable different from some previous years was an almost total lack of pictures of "the Supreme Leader" although I did find and photograph at least one, and he also featured on some t-shirts etc. There were also very few Hizbullah flags on display, and although - as I mention - there was some chanting in support of them, and the message on many placards.

But the event does appear to have the support of a number of relatively mainstream non-Iranian groups - both Muslim and various protest groups - and I mention some of these. It also claims the support of several groups that are largely the figments of a few demented imaginations, which I omit. Most of those taking part seemed to me to be from the mainstream of Muslims across the UK; it doesn't claim to be Palestinian protest, but one in support of the Palestinians, though from the faces I think there were rather more than you suggest from the area.

It wasn't the Communist Party of Great Britain by the way, but the North London branch of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) who I think qualify as the fringe of a fringe. The CPGB(M-L) have a pro-Ahmadinejad leaflet 'Hands off Iran!' on their web site and also support Gaddafi and any one else they can call an anti-imperialist.

Unlike the BBC Persian reporters I covered the event, I described it accurately and gave readers appropriate background information. Just not the kind of anti-Iran coverage you would like - but that's the difference between writing as a journalist and as a blogger.

You didnt see me?? You really should go to Specsavers!
http://azarmehr.blogspot.com/2011/08/against-all-dictators.html

Thanks for the compliments:-)

Though I didn't see you in Portland Place with the 'Free Iran' protesters who police suggested might not want to be photographed. I'm sorry if an accurate and fair report bothers you. I think yet again I must have got it right.

Yet another school boy Al-Quds Day report by Peter Marshall. When did the police tell you not to take our photos? what crap excuse are you coming up with now? When the Al-Quds photographers themselves were coming right close to us?? You really should take the trouble of coming to talk to us for once for the sake of fair and professional reporting. Absolute total crap and rubbish report of Al-Quds, I think for the third year running