Okay, where do I begin?
This is one of those editorials I should’ve written months ago. I started it, and then deleted it. Note to self: DO NOT DELETE, DO NOT DELETE.
Alas, I’ll start over.
The whole thing started with the Carter trial, and because we won an award for the pool photo Glenn took (see page 13), this whole mess came up again.
The deal is this: Only one still camera and one video camera were allowed in the courtroom. That’s kind of standard in Mass. although judges do have discretion.
The regulations are spelled out in Supreme Judicial Court Rule 119. Reporters with registered news outlets can use their gadgets in the courtroom, photographers are “pool” photographers and are supposed to share the photographs. Rule 119 says if there are multiple requests, then the news outlets are supposed to work it out among themselves. Sounds easy, right?
Wrong.
I have had this little paper for 13 years. I have covered a few court cases, but they are very time consuming, so I don’t do a lot. I have asked for pool photos from other publications quite a few times over the years and I have gotten them without question. Only once in past years have I had trouble. And that was a weird misunderstanding, which is a whole story in itself.
So, on day one of the Carter trial I emailed the Boston Herald and got the photos. God bless ‘em, I can email them at 9:30 and by 9:35 I have the pics.
On day two, I emailed the Boston Globe for the pool photo and they refused, saying the “pool was established” before the trial and “You cannot ask for photos when you did not show interest to be part of the rotation.”
Say what?
Well, there’s a whole lot of detail I’m going to leave out because the back and forth and the foolishness are not the point here.
I texted Glenn Silva and said, “You wanna help me stick to the big guys?”
Without even knowing what it was about, he said “sure.”
(Do I know who to ask or what?)
So I asked the Globe how to get in the pool, and they suddenly had all kinds of requirements which were really pretty normal stuff, like no-flash only (geesh, I know that). It was very condescending. I told them I use professional photographers all the time and had one in mind.
But, they wanted us to have a “blimp,” which muffles the camera sound in the courtroom. That, we did not have, and ordering one would take a few days. I spoke to a woman who I shall not name. After a big long conversation, it became clear she just did not want our little paper to take part in this big, important trial.
She said, well, if we don’t have the equipment, then we tried and so they will give us the photos (out of the goodness of their hearts) because it’s not our fault we couldn’t meet the requirements, or some such foolishness. I don’t know what was really going on, but I said that was fine. I just wanted the photos. An hour later, a man from the Globe called and asked if we could be pool photographer the next day.
Honest, I’m not kidding.
They said we could use their blimp (that’s another horror story).
All-righty then.
So the Neighb News joined the pool and we got closing arguments day. The Associated Press jumped into the pool, too, and that made everybody happy.
Glenn’s photos from that first day were great. By then, we had the court officers (who are beyond wonderful at Taunton Juvenile Court…love you guys!!!), rooting for us; the national press people all felt my stress and kept cheering us on; and the regional guys….well, nah, the regional guys are different, but I digress.
The other news outlets were delighted that I had no qualms sharing the photos, indeed I felt it was my obligation.
Yes, my obligation.
So, this is my point in all of this.
Maybe I’m still naive. Maybe I just want to be naive.
But, when did it become all about the byline or owning the photo? When did it change from informing our readers to making sure that the Globe photo stayed with the Globe?
I know newspapers are under a lot of financial stress, we are too. But our purpose is supposed to be to tell people what is happening around them. Our purpose is supposed to be to show them the things they cannot get out and see themselves.
What brought us to the point that the likes of a Boston Globe feels the need to short-change a paper that is run by one person working out of a 7×8-foot room?
I’m not happy to call out my colleagues, which is why I deleted the editorial all those months ago.
But the universe decided it needed to come up again, so, here we are. Because if we can’t criticize ourselves, we have no business criticizing anyone else.
Our second day to be pool was verdict day. I was ready to have a heart attack. Glenn was thrilled. The Globe and Herald…not so much.
Just a couple of minutes after we got settled inside the courtroom, the Globe AND the Herald photographers showed up: They just wanted to make sure we were okay.
Yeah, right.
I am of the opinion that if we had not already been situated inside the courtroom, one of those photographers would’ve jumped into our space in two seconds flat.
There’s way more to this story, and I might flesh it out in a blog, because some of it is pretty funny.
But for now, I just wanted to give you the context to ask: When did it stop being about informing our readers?
Because, I never did get those June 6 photos from the Globe. She said we joined the pool on June 7.
Way to go, Globe. Way to go.
Until next week then…see ya,
•••
Support local journalism, donate to the Neighb News at: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=Y6V5ARRYH689G
Click here to download the entire 3/1/18 issue: 03-01-18 SpringBee
