An example of a photo op gone wrong. The photographer from the Jerusalem Post claims he was just trying to get a picture of the two of them together and he did not intend for it to look this way. It then appeared on the Facebook page of a sister newspaper. The Jerusalem Post did not use it in its print edition nor on its website. The Chancellor is sporting a Hitler like moustache and the President reminds me of a southern Evangelist preaching fire and brimstone to his born again followers. Shadows and gestures turn into innuendo and insinuation.
Now all the defenders and detractors come out of the woodwork and try to read something into nothing. Tomorrow it will be forgotten and life goes on as it should.
Personally, if I was the photographer, I would have deleted the picture since it is not a very good one what with all the shadows and all. On the other hand he will enjoy some attention and perhaps it will advance his career.
In Coronation the Town Council is concerned about having pictures and/or audio recordings taken in Council Chambers during public meetings. In fact the council has given second reading to an amended Procedural Bylaw.
The amendment is as follows: Section 11.8 "No person shall record the proceedings of council through electronics, audio, video, camera or other devices unless authorized to do so by this or any other bylaw or by a unanimous vote of council members present."
The concern is that some members of council felt uncomfortable having their photos taken or their voices recorded while they were conducting the affairs of the town in a public meeting. They were concerned that the pictures would end up on the Internet and anyone could alter them for negative or damaging purposes. So they have chosen to amend the Procedural Bylaw to ban cameras and recording devices in Council Chambers.
Do they not think that this could be done outside of a council meeting? Or are they just trying to decrease their chances of public exposure by controlling what they can control?
It is also interesting to note that previous to this the newly minted council approved a policy regarding absent Councillors. There is now policy in place which allows audio and visual technology to be in Council Chambers to enable Councillors who are not physically present to actually take part in the proceedings. On two separate occasions a Town Councillor who was away on vacation tuned in to a Council meeting via teleconference. We are lead to believe that this will only get better since council has approved the purchase of more sophisticated audio/visual equipment to be used for this purpose.
Here is the conundrum: Council approves the latest technology to allow absent Councillors to attend meetings and then bans technology to allow photos and recordings of the proceedings. I would like these two opposing views explained to me since I am not making any sense of it. Not only that but the way the amendment is worded it would be at the discretion of the majority to allow a picture or a recording. I am not liking that either since it is not objective and would allow for conflict of interest depending on who wanted to do what.
Audio recordings are a good way for the media to review their notes and to accurately relay to the public what was said at a Council meeting. Photos are another way to show the public their Town Council in action. These are public meetings.
We cannot control all actions of all people. There are laws that deal with online harassment and bullying; there are laws that deal with defamation of character. There are legal avenues to follow should something be used unscrupulously. Just because something might happen is not a good enough reason to enact a change in a bylaw that suppresses the public's interest and right to know.
The above picture is a good example of bad photography. If some people get their kicks out of making fun of someone this way there is not a damn thing we can do about it. If this happened to one of our Town Councillors there would surely be a big public uproar and societal pressure would take over. Whoever did the dastardly deed would be publicly flogged - probably on Facebook - common decency would prevail and everything would be back to normal in a day or two.
There is no need to change the bylaw. Freedom should rule and council should not be bogged down by having to make judgement calls on what is appropriate or not. If our Town Councillors conduct themselves appropriately that is all that should count.
No comments:
Post a Comment