the ethics of citizen journalism
I’ve been thinking about what exactly Queensland MP James Bidgood did wrong when he photographed a man on the grounds of Parliament House in Canberra who was threatening to set himself alight while protesting about the visa conditions of family members. I don’t understand why he has been criticised. The root of his punishment seems to be political correctness. What, if anything, did he do wrong?
The facts: he photographed a newsworthy incident and sold the photos to a news agency and donated his fee to charity. The response: his actions have been described as insensitive, inappropriate and offensive. Bidgood uses these words himself in his grovelling apology he was forced to make in parliament.
The man making the protest was responsible for his actions and whatever shame or embarrassment he has brought on himself or his family is his responsibility. The man did not set himself alight and the photos do not show gruesome pain and suffering or violence. They do show Police officers dousing him in water and working to manage the situation.
Bidgood may be a Christian idiot (isn’t this a tautology?) who believes that the financial crisis is an act of god, but that is merely a tangential amusement. The serious issue is the irrational response to his behaviour.
Is he being punished for bringing Parliament House and the parliament itself into disrepute? How is the image of parliament (the building or the institution) undermined by this incident? Was a man carrying a container of petrol on the grounds a security breach that the parliament is embarrassed by?
Would the government prefer the public not to know that some people behave in dangerous and irrational ways when making social and political protests? Do they not want to see a big brown burnt patch on their lovely green lawn?
Is it reasonable to criticise Bidgood for witnessing the event rather than trying to assist? It seems that he was some distance away and his photos show other people including Police were already responding, so he cannot be criticised for not helping. His help was not required.
Is Bidgood being punished because, as a member of parliament at his place of work during office hours, he should not have been engaging in personal business by taking photos? Given current standards about how busy professionals mix work and life and the long hours politicians work, such simplistic interpretations are not easy to make.
Did he breach any code of conduct made by his employer (who could be the Prime Minister, the parliament and the electorate of his seat)? It does not seem the case as there are now suggestions that a code of conduct be established.
As with many examples of citizen journalism, Bidgood happened to coincidentally witness a newsworthy event and recorded evidence of it. He provided this to the media and contributed to the accuracy of reporting on the event, which is of public interest. A newspaper editor has defended Bidgood’s actions as reasonable.
To counter accusations that he could personally benefit from being at the scene at the time while being at work (Bidgood was at a nearby event) he donated his fee to charity.
That should be the end of the matter. The panic obviously coming from the office of the prime minister is yet another example of Rudd’s moral micromanagement. He wants to punish poor Afghanistani farmers because of his morally blinkered views about drugs and opium production and he wants to make the internet slow to a crawl to stop anyone using it for sexual entertainment purposes.
It’s most amusing to see two irrational Queensland Christians fighting each other over political correctness. I don’t want to have my view of the world sanitised for safe viewing by Rudd’s thought police. I don’t want the government to have the power to eliminate any news that it finds inconvenient or embarrassing. I want the raw reality. I want multiple opinions and points of view so I can make up my own mind.
Thanks to digital technologies we now live in a surveillance society. Events in public space are not protected by privacy rules. Citizen journalism is going to become more common and more pervasive over time as it becomes easier to monitor and record events that occur in public space.
Bidgood has done the citizens of Australia a service by further exposing the extent to which Rudd wants to undermine free speech and freedom of expression. We are all the media now and the freedom of the media is being attacked by Big Rudd. What are we going to do about it?
Update 5 January 2009: Sydney man Nick Holmes a Court was harassed by police officers when he lawfully filmed them in a public street. It was a pathetic abuse of power. It shows the extent to which the state is threatened by citizen journalism and user generated content. There’s no longer anywhere to hide. The truth will come out.
Similar or related posts
|
|
|
|
Other posts you may find relevant and interesting
- Fitzroy history – complaining about local government, 4 October 2009
- Fitzroyalty on the curriculum, 21 July 2009
- if only Melbourne was more like San Francisco (or Sydney), 21 August 2009
- why should we pay to placate irrational behaviour?, 7 December 2008
- driven to distraction, 28 June 2007
December 27th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
From what I remember reading in the newspapers when this broke: initially Bidgood intended on selling his photographs to the media to profit himself only – demanding (from memory, I’m probably wrong) five grand for the images before being chastised by, well, everybody.
If that *is* the case: well, the idea of somebody aiming to turn a profit from an event as awful as what happened, I don’t know. That just doesn’t sit right with me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 27th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
IMHO the fuss was about a) a politician (on work time) behaving inappropriately and more importantly, b) selling the resulting photos.
IIRC he only donated the fee after a fuss was caused. I find it interesting that although you’re indignant about his treatment, Bidgood accepted that he had behaved wrongfully.
Personally, I consider his actions heartless – he was attempting to profit from another’s pain. Demonstrations are common at Parliament House, but as an MP he should behave more professionally rather than grabbing a tawdry opportunity as he did.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 30th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
So what about professional journalists and photographers who spend all day hovering waiting to profit from the misery of others? Does being professional make it ok?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 1st, 2009 at 12:07 am
Not so much indignant about him, because he seems rather unlikeable, but th treatment he received seemed to verge on the hysterical. I think he was forced to say what he said and I don’t believe he or anyone else actally believes it to be true. It’s meaningless pc babble.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0