Veteran for Peace at Occupy Boston

ChesterJack

Here is a shot of a Veteran for Peace at Occupy Boston

RSL

ChesterJack wrote: »

Here is a shot of a Veteran for Peace at Occupy Boston

Chester, what makes you think this guy's a veteran? Because he says he is?

Harryb

RSL wrote: »

Chester, what makes you think this guy's a veteran? Because he says he is?

What does this post have to do with photography?

RSL

I has to do with PJ, Harry. Supposedly that's one of the things this forum is teaching.

ChesterJack

DavidTO wrote: »

A couple of moderator notes:



It's better form to start your own thread to share your pics than to tack them onto an existing thread, unless the OP creates the thread for that purpose ("Post your night shots here", for example).



I'm not sure what the point of this post is. It's either about the girl or the politics. Neither comment is about photography, which is what we talk about here.

Point taken. Thanks for the advice!!

DavidTO

ChesterJack wrote: »

Point taken. Thanks for the advice!!

Yup! Looking forward to seeing more!

Richard

I moved this pic to its own thread.

RSL wrote: »

Chester, what makes you think this guy's a veteran? Because he says he is?

Not sure why you doubt it. There is a Cambridge-based chapter of the Veterans for Peace named the Smedley D. Butler Brigade. If it walks like a duck...

richardman

OK, lets talk about this photographically... This is a decent image, but ...can be better. Is this the only image you took? Did you "work the scene?" For example, it may be interesting to have a different angle. What's most interesting about this shot almost is his badge and the green ear-piece. Show us more!

Richard

richardman wrote: »

OK, lets talk about this photographically... This is a decent image, but ...can be better. Is this the only image you took? Did you "work the scene?" For example, it may be interesting to have a different angle. What's most interesting about this shot almost is his badge and the green ear-piece. Show us more!

Good point. He's holding a sign but we don't see what it says. As part of a series, that might be OK, I suppose, but a standalone image should convey more information.

RSL

Richard wrote: »

I moved this pic to its own thread.

Not sure why you doubt it. There is a Cambridge-based chapter of the Veterans for Peace named the Smedley D. Butler Brigade. If it walks like a duck...

Richard, Read Stolen Valor by Burkette and you'll understand why I question it. This guy may be legit; probably is, but there's plenty of reason to question a guy like this. All I can do is laugh at an outfit that calls itself "Veterans for Peace." I went to war three times and I can tell you that without a doubt the most anti-war people in the world are veterans who've been anywhere near combat. All real veterans are "veterans for peace." And there have been hundreds of phony veterans who have "walked like a duck..."

And for anybody who thinks the question is off topic: this thread clearly is about PJ. The second part of that two-word phrase is "journalism." Good journalism demands penetrating inquiry into the claims people make.

dbveto

In this photo it does not tell me it's a Veteran for Peace for all I know he could be holding a sign for something else, why is he wearing ear plugs?

Not every one know that "There is a Cambridge-based chapter of the Veterans for Peace named the Smedley D. Butler Brigade."

To me the picture says protest but not what kind?

Harryb

RSL wrote: »

Richard, Read Stolen Valor by Burkette and you'll understand why I question it. This guy may be legit; probably is, but there's plenty of reason to question a guy like this. All I can do is laugh at an outfit that calls itself "Veterans for Peace." I went to war three times and I can tell you that without a doubt the most anti-war people in the world are veterans who've been anywhere near combat. All real veterans are "veterans for peace." And there have been hundreds of phony veterans who have "walked like a duck..."

And for anybody who thinks the question is off topic: this thread clearly is about PJ. The second part of that two-word phrase is "journalism." Good journalism demands penetrating inquiry into the claims people make.

The issue here appears to be your own bias. The man identified himself as a vet. What is the photographer supposed to do? Check with the DOD or VA? Just because you may not agree with his position does not invalidate his claim. What penetrating inquiry do you expect a photographer to make when he/she is taking pictures at a demonstration?

RSL

Checking with the VA won't help. They'll take on virtually anybody who claims to be a vet. But yes, the DOD can confirm or deny. I couldn't care less about his "position," but this forum claims to be about street photography and photojournalism. I'd expect a photographer who claims to be doing photojournalism to make inquiries before he accepts anything like that at face value. Photojournalism is a discipline that requires a lot more than snapshots.

Harryb

RSL wrote: »

Checking with the VA won't help. They'll take on virtually anybody who claims to be a vet. But yes, the DOD can confirm or deny. I couldn't care less about his "position," but this forum claims to be about street photography and photojournalism. I'd expect a photographer who claims to be doing photojournalism to make inquiries before he accepts anything like that at face value. Photojournalism is a discipline that requires a lot more than snapshots.

You really expect someone to check with the DOD?

The photographer took a picture at a demonstration. Again your questioning is based on your opposition to his position it has nothing to do with PJ or street photography.

RSL

Again, I couldn't care less about his "position." As I made clear, I'm a veteran for peace too. But if you're doing real photojournalism, photo or otherwise, you don't show a picture and say "Here is a shot of a Veteran for Peace at Occupy Boston" unless you know he's a veteran. It's okay to say something like "Here's a shot of a man who claims to be a veteran for peace," or "here's a man dressed as a veteran for peace," but the minute you verify his status with your own statement you're stepping over the "journalism" line. It's roughly equivalent to leaving off "alleged" when you write about a man accused, but not convicted, of a crime. I realize there are publications that don't pay much attention to journalistic integrity, but after a while people start laughing at them.

Harryb

RSL wrote: »

Again, I couldn't care less about his "position." As I made clear, I'm a veteran for peace too. But if you're doing real photojournalism, photo or otherwise, you don't show a picture and say "Here is a shot of a Veteran for Peace at Occupy Boston" unless you know he's a veteran. It's okay to say something like "Here's a shot of a man who claims to be a veteran for peace," or "here's a man dressed as a veteran for peace," but the minute you verify his status with your own statement you're stepping over the "journalism" line. It's roughly equivalent to leaving off "alleged" when you write about a man accused, but not convicted, of a crime. I realize there are publications that don't pay much attention to journalistic integrity, but after a while people start laughing at them.

Sorry Russ but your comments do show your opposition to his position. You want verification of his veteran status only because you don't agree with him. If someone posts a picture of a woman with a child do you want a blood test to verify that the woman is really the child's mother? If someone posts a pic of a homeless person do you want verification that they are homeless?

Every year I shoot the ceremonies at our local vet's reunion when the moving wall is put up. Should I request DD-214's of everyone who claims veteran status at the ceremony?

RSL

No kidding, Harry? What is his "position?" If you can explain that I might be able to tell you whether or not I oppose it. I'm afraid your straw men (or women) don't clear up the problem. You're perfectly free to accept the claims of anybody at your ceremony, but, if you're doing serious journalism, you're not free to endorse them.

Harryb

RSL wrote: »

No kidding, Harry? What is his "position?" If you can explain that I might be able to tell you whether or not I oppose it. I'm afraid your straw men (or women) don't clear up the problem. You're perfectly free to accept the claims of anybody at your ceremony, but, if you're doing serious journalism, you're not free to endorse them.

Russ your comments here and in the other thread clearly show your opposition. It has nothing to do with journalism or photography.

ChesterJack I appologize that this discussion has hijacked your thread and pic. The picture would have been more effective if you had gotten his sign into the frame.

RSL

Sounds to me as if you're the one who's taking a position. I've had my say, and I'll stick by it. Bye.

bdcolen

Harryb wrote: »

What does this post have to do with photography?

Um, Harry? It's a photograph. Taken in the street - in a public place. It may not be the best photo ever posted on this site, but Lord knows it's not even on the same planet as the worst. What could you possibly mean by asking this question?

bdcolen

Richard wrote: »

I moved this pic to its own thread.

Not sure why you doubt it. There is a Cambridge-based chapter of the Veterans for Peace named the Smedley D. Butler Brigade. If it walks like a duck...

This is an utterly bizarre exchange - and quite telling that people don't seem to question "veterans" participating in Tea Party demonstrations.

Richard

bdcolen wrote: »

Um, Harry? It's a photograph. Taken in the street - in a public place. It may not be the best photo ever posted on this site, but Lord knows it's not even on the same planet as the worst. What could you possibly mean by asking this question?

I believe Harry's comment was about the quote from Russ in his post, not about the OP's image.

DavidTO

bdcolen wrote: »

Um, Harry? It's a photograph. Taken in the street - in a public place. It may not be the best photo ever posted on this site, but Lord knows it's not even on the same planet as the worst. What could you possibly mean by asking this question?

Harry's comment was in reference to the quote in his post, not the image.

bdcolen

RSL wrote: »

Checking with the VA won't help. They'll take on virtually anybody who claims to be a vet. But yes, the DOD can confirm or deny. I couldn't care less about his "position," but this forum claims to be about street photography and photojournalism. I'd expect a photographer who claims to be doing photojournalism to make inquiries before he accepts anything like that at face value. Photojournalism is a discipline that requires a lot more than snapshots.

So, Russ, when and for how long, and where, were you a working journalist. You seem to have a lot of opinions about what journalists do and don't do, and what photo journalism is and isn't, so I'd love to hear a bit about the experience upon which you base your opinions.

ChesterJack

bdcolen wrote: »

So, Russ, when and for how long, and where, were you a working journalist. You seem to have a lot of opinions about what journalists do and don't do, and what photo journalism is and isn't, so I'd love to hear a bit about the experience upon which you base your opinions.

hey everyone I really apologize if my post and characterization of it has caused any disagreement here. Certainly not my intent. I asked the man if he was a Verteran and he indicated that he was. He was carrying a flag that said Verterans For Peace as were about a dozen other older guys who all appeared to be veterans and were circling the white pick up truck.

The reason for the ear plugs was we were directly in front of the pick up truck that had huge loudspeakers on them and the speakers were using them when the march arrived at Dewey Square in Boston. It was so loud that I eventually moved away from them.

I have a bunch of other shots related to the events on saturday that I will post tonight to provide better context of what was actually happening there. I took a coupe of hundred and wound up with maybe a dozen that I think are any good. But it was a great deal of fun!! And you are all right that more shots really tell the whole story.

Please understand that I am NOT a photojournalist but rather just a 54 year old guy who works hard Monday through Friday and jumps out of bed every saturday and sunday at first light to just go out and find opportunities to take shots. I admire all the photographers who post on here as they post with such a level of quality that I can only hope to aspire to.

As you can see from my ID informaiton I have made 10 posts in total so far.. I do not deny I am intimidated posting on here and I will continue to make my fair share of mistakes until I finally do figure it out. Please be patient with me as I am really trying. I welcome all the feedback as it will make me better.

Thanks

Richard

Hey ChesterJack,

No need to apologize--you did nothing wrong (other than not include the sign in the shot ). Keep shooting and keep posting.

bfjr

Richard wrote: »

Hey ChesterJack,

No need to apologize--you did nothing wrong (other than not include the sign in the shot ). Keep shooting and keep posting.

and I would like to add:

If you read thru some of the current threads you will see that it's been a Cantankerous Week !

There is much passion in the world for current events as well as our collective love of everything Photographic.

I'm 61 with almost 10,000 posts, I still stress over every post.
It should be like that because I care about my efforts on all sorts of levels.

I really could go on and on, I won't.

Talk to you on your next post

RSL

bdcolen wrote: »

So, Russ, when and for how long, and where, were you a working journalist. You seem to have a lot of opinions about what journalists do and don't do, and what photo journalism is and isn't, so I'd love to hear a bit about the experience upon which you base your opinions.

Come on, BD, why do you think anybody would have to be a journalist to recognize the difference between responsible journalism and irresponsible journalism. All you have to do is read the Wall Street Journal and then the New York Times. The difference becomes clear at once.

This will have to be my parting shot for a while. Tomorrow morning early I depart on a leisurely trip down to Florida, on the back roads, through a lot of little towns, and over territory much of which is made for photography.

Richard

Sorry, Russ, but I think if anyone is being irresponsible in this thread it's you. The OP stated that he talked to the subject. If you have any evidence that the subject was lying, you have not presented it. Your doubts are based on nothing more than speculation. In any event, what is of primary interest here is photography. Anyone who is using Dgrin as a source of news is insane.

dbveto

Richard wrote: »

Hey ChesterJack,

No need to apologize--you did nothing wrong (other than not include the sign in the shot ). Keep shooting and keep posting.

+1
Do not hesitate to post!

RSL

Richard wrote: »

Sorry, Russ, but I think if anyone is being irresponsible in this thread it's you. The OP stated that he talked to the subject. If you have any evidence that the subject was lying, you have not presented it. Your doubts are based on nothing more than speculation. In any event, what is of primary interest here is photography. Anyone who is using Dgrin as a source of news is insane.

Richard, You're probably right. ChesterJack simply shot a picture and accepted the "veteran" at face value. Most people would do the same thing. But there are a lot of real veterans out there who won't accept at face value the claims of somebody dressed like this guy. He may very well be legitimate, but there are thousands of people out there who claim to be veterans, yet never served in the armed forces, or worse, who claim to be combat veterans who either never served or never left the U.S. Unfortunately, journalists love phony Vietnam vets who show up at demonstrations like this one, telling about their problems with Agent Orange or PTS. I can only conclude that there aren't any other vets on "Street & PJ," because I turned out to be the only voice that was, as you put it, "irresponsible." If you want to get an idea of how widespread the problem is, and why veterans, to be polite, "react negatively" to this kind of crap, read Stolen Valor. If you've never served, you may not be able to make real contact with this book, but it's worth a try to expand your horizons.