Could Skype be a Web-Ex Killer? Bye Bye co.mments – to the deadpool with ya BodyBugg Calorie Counter Google Issues First Update for Picasa for Mac Unfortunately We Didn't Get the Macbook Wheel Today US Air Forces puts bloggers in their sights Prank Targets Google With 9/11 Symbol Search ✈ ▌▌ Some Apple users are so cute in their fandom iTunes Goes DRM-Free, Changes Pricing System
Category: Technology Author : Duncan Riley Posted: December 3, 2008
Tags : ,
Subscribe: Tech Feed, Email, Twitter

Australian Parliament condemns Citizen Journalist MP over Protest Pictures

    StumbleUpon Digg Reddit Mixx del.icio.us MySpace Fark Facebook TwitThis Propeller Wikio Yahoo! Buzz

The Prime Minister and Parliament of Australia have condemned a Member of Parliament who sold protest images to News Corp for charity.

Member for Dawson James Bidgood, who has experience in photography captured images of a man who tried to set himself on fire outside Parliament House in Canberra.

After capturing the images, Bidgood offered the images to the Daily Telegraph newspaper in return for a $1000 AUD ($630 USD) donation to charity.

News of the sale reached Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who demanded Bidgood apologize to Parliament and the man photographed for the “deeply offensive” photographs.

In a statement to Parliament, Bidgood said “My actions were highly insensitive and inappropriate and I am tonight writing a letter of apology to the family involved. I deeply regret my actions and I apologize once again for any offense I have caused.”

Manager of Opposition business Joe Hockey demanded further action, claiming the photographs raised very alarming issues, and suggesting that the photographs may have constituted breaches of security.

Here’s the thing: I don’t get the outcry. Bidgood was nearby the protest as the incident took place. He took some photographs of a news event, and then offered to sell the photographs for charity and not personal gain (although Fairfax is claiming that the donation part came later). He acted as a citizen journalist in a public space, and he was good enough to use the photographs to raise money for charity.

Is the Australian Government suggesting that MP’s can’t take photographs? Or do they really believe that taking photographs of an event in public is the sole domain of heritage media journalists? That what was being photographed was upsetting is a given, but these photographs could have been taken by anyone present, because ultimately it is a free country, well until they censor the internet anyway. Bidgood acted as a citizen journalist and looked to give money to a good cause, and for this is does not deserve condemnation.

(img credit:Sky News)


Related Posts



Viewing 3 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    It's a blanket response to any perception by anyone of any offence. Sheesh! Makes me wonder about the increasingly ill-conceived and in this case draconian federal government response to stifling comment on the web. What next? And I'm a Labor supporter!
    • ^
    • v
    i'm guessing rudds 'heavy counselling' touched not only on the donation 'afterthought' but also took a general 'rise above the fray'/ 'conduct unbecoming' line.
    But ever the micromanager, Rudds main bugbear would simply have been that a labor parliamentarian took part in a media event that he did not himself authorise/orchestrate.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't believe people can clear this MP of selling distressing images of a person who was well known to him as a protester of the Australian Immigration system. This man and his family were familiar to the MP and his party and identified themselves publicly in the days preceding the MP's decision to photograph them. He sold the images to a news outlet that challenged the price of the sale. MP Bidgood then nominated a charity of his choosing to benefit from the distressing photos. My understanding is the MP did intend to sell the photos for personal profit and on second thoughts nominated a charity that at this stage remains unknown. The politically expedient solution remains in the hands of the news oultet and the MPs party - neither of whom will divulge the beneficiary of income derived from the deemed misery. The MP remains under investigation for other bizarre activities associated with his party.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus
King.com (Midasplayer.com Ltd.)