Unwise? maybe but a crime? no surely.
That Labor back bencher who took those pictures would we be ofended if he was a free lance Photographer?
Or if he worked for the paper that printed them?
What should he have done, do we question the millions of feet of film showing bashings murders or animal cruelty?
Do we want news or would we rather any one close get involved in the news, step in risk life or injury to stop it?
I do not post to defend the man, but beleave we are at a low point in politics if he must do any more than he has, apolidgise for being there, for taking that shot, for seeing a charity got a donation, for what ever crime? he did.
The question is this, is it ok to film or take pictures of new events?

To me it's the pharisees dragging the adulterous woman before Jesus and saying "The law says stone her"......though in this case it is the 'law' of the imagination of the people scrambling for high moral ground at the expense of this bloke.

All those who now feel just a bit better about themselves for showing revulsion over this politicians opportunism are like that I feel.

"let the critic without sin cast the first stone"

Belly, I don't think that Bidgood has done anything wrong. This is the era of citizen empowerment in the news production business. The new paradigm is the citizen journalist - the person who contributes to MSM and alternative media when and as they see news.

With the concentration of media in fewer and fewer hands, with smaller and smaller workforces because of smaller and smaller budgets, the citizen becomes an even more important source of diversity and accuracy in news reporting.

I put my initial thoughts together last night at http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003426.html, and they are still developing. Bidgood should be a poster boy for the new paradigm. Afterall, what is the substantive difference between taking photos which you sell to the media, and writing op-eds that you do, like Tony Abbott and Mark Latham? You don't cease to be a citizen just because you are elected to parliament.

Nothing surprises me anymore. When a man can be arrested and charged for creating child pornography for photographing fully clothed children in a public place. In this case and the case involving the politician, bad mannered maybe, but shouldn't be a crime.

I wouldn't have taken a photo. I'd have supplied the match. D!(# heads like this bloke should be allowed to die anyway they like. One less DH is a bonus for Australia.

It's a disgrace that Bidgood had to appologise. It's a free enterprise market. Make a Quid where you can. No one condems the Paparatsi

The worst thing is this man represents an entire electorate of voters. What a low act. Making money out of the misfortune of others is hardly credit worthy or entrepreneurial.

Fairly or unfairly, the fact he is a politician probably makes it worse in my mind. What sort of people do we want representing us in Parliament.

What is more ironic is that this man quotes the Bible at the drop of a hat and states the financial crisis is an act of God. It appears he is one of those non-practising types. The decision to donate the money to charity as an afterthought once the news hit highlights that some part of him must know it was not the right thing to do.

Poor Rudd has his share of lame ducks, first the Iguana affair, then the Beef Stroganoff affair, and now paparazzi politicians. What awaits us next around the corner.

You've beaten me to it, Pelican. I agree with all you say and cannot believe that five posts down and not one person has expressed an ounce of sympathy for the tragic plight of the man involved here.

What is this? A human tragedy or a photo opportunity? Shame on a politician of all people. He was the one person in the perfect position to lobby on this man's behalf and actually help him. But, no, his one and only response was to photograph him and attempt to cash in on his misery.

Why am I not surprised that this fruit loop also chooses to spout religion as his idea of a political contribution to the urgent problem of climate change. Kevin Rudd should dump him immediately.

And once he's done that, perhaps he, or his Immigration Minister, can give this poor tormented man, who in sheer desperation has resorted to harming himself to have his pleas taken seriously, a private hearing.

AH you do know he did not make any money don't you?
He asked for a donation to charity.
Would he have been better running in to stop the bloke?
Did he have a chance to do that?
If he committed a crime I am not sure what it was.
If a storm is blowing your next door neighbors roof of do you film it or just watch?
Is his crime as bad as the BBC paying young Palestinians to throw stones and filming it?
Real life story no rubbish.
Time and again on the once NSW highway of death tragic scenes appeared on the nightly news.
You may have got a glimpse of me or my mates, taunt and under great stress we moved aside as two men with cameras took the shots you never saw.
Those good men mates in a way, independent camera men, took file footage for the police.
Helping the coroner and I would not watch those films again ever, they however did no wrong.
Graham has it right reporting the news is not usually making it.
This story came from a Medea place that once had pride but is not unlike another outlet owned by the same man.
The publisher of the photos paid for them.
It is typical of that once proud paper that they used both the photos and the story to get further in the gutter.
Tonights news will be very boring if we outlaw such harmless things as this.

pelican: "What a low act. Making money out of the misfortune of others is hardly credit worthy or entrepreneurial."

He didn't make any money. In return for giving the photographs away he asked the news organisation make a $1000 to charity connected to disabilities.

You know pelican, you make me sit here and shake my head is despair. On the one hand, in the our discussions elsewhere on internet filtering I have to hand it to you: unlike the others you haven't invented reasons, invoked weird fantasies or or anything else. You simply say the truth: you personally don't like the stuff and you certainly don't want your kids seeing it. We disagree on the importance of downsides of filtering, but I think reasonable people could disagree on such a complex issue.

Yet, yet ... here we have such a simple thing. A photograph. A photograph taken by a politician of a man making a fairly extreme political statement. A very newsworthy statement, yet it would probably of been ignored - except this politician took a photograph of it and gave it to a newspaper. And apparently we can't agree on even this. You, presumably, would prefer the photograph of a man threatening to kill himself was never taken, and certainly not sold to a newspaper. I look at it from a different perspective.

If we can not agree on a single photograph, what hope do we have on agreeing on what should be on the internet?

And don't for a second imagine all photographs are as simple in their cause and effects as this one. The implications of every man + dog being able to record his view of the world can get very complex:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081204-editorial-does-amazons-iphone-app-go-too-far.html

Graham Y
The MP’s actions weren’t illegal but were definitely inappropriate and insensitive.
Perhaps it’s our different views on the purpose/function of a politician.
The role he accepted was to faithfully represent all his constituents.
A position that he knew or should have known (and is well compensated for) meant that it is beholden of him to show extra public decorum and restraint.
All electorates consist of a very wide range of people with an equalling range of ability to cope. I can’t see how his action enhanced his capacity to inspire confidence in his sincerity or concern for the desperate end of that coping range. The money is irrelevant unless it went to the individual and even then I think his action was in poor taste.
It won’t help Kevin’s ‘caring government image’ either
It is this systematic impersonalization of individuals necessary to sustain a regime whose prime purpose is to make profits that I find so unpalatable.
I would dispute that this instance needed a photo to tell the story.
Also his status is what made it front page and centre on all TV news. Certainly not the issue or the individuals involved. The news maxim ‘if it bleeds it leads’ comes to mind.
In the light of other less spectacular stories but more important ISSUES that didn’t get past the editor’s desk a claim of cheap sensationalism comes to mind.
It's been dealt with I hope the MP learned his lesson on the stupid, the bad , and the ugly of PR.

Dear Belly,

I feel sorry for the PM more than anyone else
on this one. He needed this like a hole in the head.

As if he doesn't have enough on his plate with the
Libs blocking everything worthwhile that he
tries to achieve, and criticizing ...boy are they
experts at that.

I cringe every time Turnbull opens his mouth in
Parliament. What a disappointment he turned out to
be. I had high hopes for him at one stage, but
now he's just become a party hack.

As for Julie Bishop, she's so misinformed, it's
embarassing.

Anyway, I think that the PM should actually have
a few words to say to his MP. As I said, he
really doesn't need to have this kind of publicity.
There are more important issues to worry about and deal
with.

Heydee, hodee. I saw a man get his face smashed in by a rampaging mob last night. His little daughter was beside herself. But hey, what the heck! Had my camera at the ready just be chance and snapped off a few gooduns. Channel 9 and 7 both offered me a miserly $1 grand.

I'm off to 10, they'll pay more.

The man and his daughter? Hell I dunno. Last I saw she was cradling his bl**dy head. Not my business to interfere. It's a free world where it's no crime for a man to make a buck.

Sorry Spikey but that post is way out there.
Foxy the PM has spoken to him, that is all he needed to do.
You are quite right Turnbull, the gutter press, and a lot more pounce on any thing to try to blacken this government.
Its not a new tactic, throwing mud not policy's is a birth right for conservatives in opposition.
Let us not ever forget, it was the deepest part of gutter journalism, this paper that printed the pictures they paid for.
Now look at the photos, any chance this man could have intervened?
Truly what is his crime?
If he could have stopped it then do it take no photos, but who would step in?
In our I do not want to get involved world who would jump in risking life and limb?
This story is a beat up, never forget if he was a free lancer it would not be a story, we who are content with Rudd's government must remember if you or I took this photo no blame would be placed.
Spikey, Rwanda, Somalia, ten million feet of horrible film even more photos and printed words, all made us aware of evil acts.
Food aid was born because of them, lets remain closer to reality.

rstuart
We probably will never agree on the aspects of the internet filtering debate. Surprisingly I am generally anti-censorship and if this was any other situation that did not effect the wellbeing of children - say someone advocating censorship of euthanasia discussion, political discussion etc - I would be up there with you in support.

If anything I do agree with you that if the technicalities of filtering won't work then it would seem pointless and I confess, while not a technical luddite, I am no expert on this aspect and tend to talk about the issue from an ideological point of view.

However in relation to Bidgood's actions I do have a real problem with his behaviour. It was not illegal that is true. But there are many things that are not illegal but might be considered unethical or ill-thought out.

My understanding is that he offered the money to charity as an afterthought once his actions made the headlines. However if this is not the case and I mispoke, I would still ask why a man in his position would be moved to take such a photograph. Perhaps with high hopes, as a citizen I do expect our politicians to lead by example.

Belly,
I say this as someone who supported Labor winning government. If we cannot criticise our 'side' when we feel their actions are ill-advised we are no better than the Coalition continually defending Work Choices while it continually proved to affect adversely those disempowered groups in the lower income sectors.

Everyone makes mistakes, I know I have made some doozies. If Bidgood is truly sorry and only he can be the judge, then we have to forgive and move on. What are mistakes if they are not opportunities to learn.

Certain jobs bring certain responsibilities - as a former public servant I signed a confidentiality agreement which is permanently binding. Politicians, no doubt sign similar. They are also responsible for ALL their constituents as Examinator pointed out. That any money Bidgood may have made is being given to charity, no way mitigates his ill-thought act.

Was taking the photo inappropriate for anyone? My answer is no.

While I don't imagine myself taking such a picture, we do live in an age of instant communication, I would be surprised if no-one saw a photo opportunity. Was it in good taste? No. My point remains that it was wrong for a politician to behave like a paparazzi hack. Kevin Rudd took suitable action.

Well said Foxy, Pelican, Bronwyn, Examinator. Foxy am in agreement with you about Turnbull also - very disappointing.

pelican: "if the technicalities of filtering won't work"

It will work to an extent pelican. It will reduce the odds of people happening across porn by accident. It will not stop teenagers once they start seeking it out.

pelican: "say someone advocating censorship of euthanasia discussion"

Senator Conroy: "I mean as an example, I had an argument, not an argument, a discussion with Senate Estimates with a Greens Senator, who believed that euthanasia websites shouldn't be blacklisted."

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/mediareport/stories/2008/2405376.htm

As for the picture, well Graham Young's blog entry on the subject sums up my position pretty well. He gave the link above, and of course is a much better wordsmith than I. However, in answer to some of the suggestions made above:

- The idea of donating the picture was never an afterthought. In particular he did not try to get the cash, then change his mind when sprung.

- The picture was taken after the event. The federal police already had control of the situation. In particular he did not take the picture instead of intervening to help the subject.

- I don't know what Bidgood's motivations were. As far as I can tell neither does anybody else. Some here are seem to be telling us what they imagined Bidgood's motivations to be, and pronouncing judgement based on that.

As for me I don't have a clue what he did wrong. I can understand he crossed some people's moral boundaries. You can tell that because they use emotive, not substantive words to criticise what he did. However, unless they can describe what he did wrong in substantive terms it is probably their moral boundaries that need adjusting, not Bidgood's.

Belly

"AH you do know he did not make any money don't you? He asked for a donation to charity."

I haven't checked, but, like Pelican, my bet is that the charity gesture was an afterthought and very much a cynical ploy to redeem his public image.

"Would he have been better running in to stop the bloke?"

Yes.

"Did he have a chance to do that?"

I don't know for certain but my guess is that he would have.

"Time and again on the once NSW highway of death tragic scenes appeared on the nightly news. You may have got a glimpse of me or my mates, taunt and under great stress we moved aside as two men with cameras took the shots you never saw. Those good men mates in a way, independent camera men, took file footage for the police. Helping the coroner and I would not watch those films again ever, they however did no wrong."

This is an invalid comparison, Belly. These people were already dead. They couldn't be helped.

The man who doused himself was very much alive. His actions were an anguished cry for help. He should have been assisted immediately, not photographed.

Bronwyn,

As it turns out, you are flat out wrong in each of your suppositions.

If you google "Bidgood photograph", you can get a fairly complete picture of what he actually did in 10 minutes or so - certainly less than it took you to post twice here.

It is so much more fun to cry foul at some imagined crime, I guess.

Bronwyn, Pelican, did both of you base your criticisms on the wrong belief he did it for profit?Then you leaped to the wrong conclusion, Pelican find another Labor poster who finds as much fault as I have in my party.
Quite frankly I expect better from both of you.
No crime moral or actual has been committed, Bronwyn says my comparisons are unfair.
How about that napalm scared girl from the Vietnam war? would we be better never knowing?
Or that gun shot to the head should we know it happened?
Not a single chance ,not for an instant in time existed to get involved in this event.
Should we have seen those planes hitting those towers or huddled in corners because some would be offended by the photos more than the act?
Tell me Bronwyn in your words exactly why if I took the photos it would be wrong.
Pelican, please do you think that joke Joe Hockey would be upset if say Tony Abbot took the photos?
It a beat up anti Labor , unrealistic beat up.

Belly
I have no doubt that the opposition would have postured a different view had it been an Liberal in Bidgood's place. That is the nature of politics.

My belief was based on the fact that Bidgood offerred the photo to the media in exchange for money and that he later went on to say he meant it for charity. This view was based on a number of articles one of which I have linked below.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24748284-5013871,00.html

This is not to say the media are not past spinning their own version of the truth.

Let's assume for a minute that Bidgood did not want the money for himself. What possible motive would he have had to offer this photo up to the media. Was it an altruistic one to bring attention to the plight of this man? Many years living and working among pollies of all persuasions leads me to think otherwise but perhaps I have become too cynical in respect of politicians.

As I said earlier the only person who can knows the real motives is Bigood himself and I guess we have to decide as individuals if we believe him.

Pelican I believe him, without any doubt I believe him.
The man is a committed Christian, now for me that earns him no browny points.
But I think he is unlikely to want to lie because he is one.
Given we can not agree on the money thing lets consider this.
Did that man want to die or just highlight his complaint?
One way or another his intention in doing that in that place must have been to publicize his cause do we agree?
Surely it is more than likely what ever else he intended he wanted news coverage?
If not he could have committed this act in the bush without intervention.
These photos rather than being unfair to him seem to be just what he wanted from his display.
This without doubt, is a beat up, this is news making by that gutter Medea outlet not news reporting.
While Bidwell reported, the paper excepted, they build a hill out of an ants nest because they do that if Labor is involved.
Selling some papers is destroying true journalism.

Dear Bronwyn....you said:

"I agree with all you say and cannot believe that five posts down and not one person has expressed an ounce of sympathy for the tragic plight of the man involved here"

Hmmmm...now is it just possible...that the person attempting self harm.. is NOT...repeate NOT the topic here?

The TOPIC just in case a few of you haven't worked it out yet is about PHOTOGRAPHS and yes..it needs to be stated rather LOUDly because clearly some have an obvious 'hearing' deficiency.

IF..the topic was about 'self harm and its tragic consequences' then we could/would focus on that person... but because it isn't... we didn't.

This actually shows a remarkable 'fit' to the pattern of those who simply don't 'get' the realities of life. They are presented with something of importance i.e. a politician indulging in controvesial behavior..but they prefer to condemn us for sticking to the actual topic and berate us for lack of compassion.. hmmmm (again).. this pattern is also evidence on the issue of assylum seekers and that kind of thing.

Reflect Bronny.... on the issue of 'what are they talking about' and then maybe you can join in rather than throwing stones.

The man (to follow your line) was an idiot, who tried to force a desired outcome for personal reasons. His desperation does not matter, IF... the outcome he desires is contrary to our law and the decisions of our courts.
IF..we followed that line..then the families of every convicted murderer would burn themselves outside a court room if they thought the verdict could be changed by doing it.

Poly
I think you are the only one getting confused about the victim here given that your last post is the only one that managed to forget the point entirely (ie. photographs) and go on to make political points about asylum seekers.

pelican: "This is not to say the media are not past spinning their own version of the truth."

Yes, indeed. Particularly in this case as one news organisation can use the incident to throw mud at the other. In situations like this, you scan several reports from different organisations to make sure you aren't being fed, errr, crap. That is why I said to Browyn it would take her 10 minutes to read up on the topic, instead of 2 it would take to read a single news story. The ABC (usually) stays above such tatics and such is a great place to start. In the google search they appeared in the first page of hits.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/04/2437524.htm

If you read it, you will see we don't just have Mr Bidgood's word for it.

I don't know the man from a bar of soap. He may well be deserving of the all the aspersions being cast at him here. But from the evidence I have seen so far, not because of this incident.

Also, can one of you girls tell me why you are so keen choosing the worst possible explanation whenever a range of possibilities present themselves? It would be nice to know why, as I still don't have a clue.

rstuart

"As it turns out, you are flat out wrong in each of your suppositions."

In regards to the first 'supposition' - that the charity idea was an afterthought -

"Mr Bidgood took photos of the incident and offered them to news photographers who arrived after it happened. 'Do you have shots?' he asked the photographers, according to a witness. 'How much are they worth?'

The witness said Mr Bidgood retracted that comment and said the money should be donated to a charity." (Tom Arup, Canberra, The Age, December 4).

If I'm 'flat out wrong', then so is this reporter and others who reported the incident in the same way.

Regarding the second 'supposition' - that Bidgood could have run in to stop the man -

Why am I 'flat out wrong' here?

Bidgood was right there on the spot. He had time to get a phone or camera out to take a photo. It would have taken the same amount of time to run forward and say something to the effect of, 'Don't do this. I'm a politician. I might be able to help.'

As a person openly professing to be a Christian, you would have thought that would be his first response. What are you suggesting? That he thought, 'No I won't help this man by offering a human hand of kindness in his hour of need. I'll help him by photographing him instead and publicizing his plight. Never mind that he might actually carry out his threat in front of me and kill himself while I'm doing it.'

Of course, Bidgood could have run in to try and help. I don't need to have been an eye witness to know that.

I doubt very much I'm 'flat out wrong' on either of these so-called 'suppositions', but if you can provide precise evidence to the contary, as oppposed to telling me to do my own search, I'll be the first to admit my error.

Polycarp

"Hmmmm...now is it just possible...that the person attempting self harm.. is NOT...repeate NOT the topic here?"

As the subject of the photographs in question, 'the person attempting self harm' is central to the discussion here. Whether or not Bidgood's actions were correct pivots very much on the circumstances of his subject, Marat Aminov.

Mr Aminov and his family are stateless. No other country in the world wants them or will have them. They're on Bridging Visas which means they aren't allowed to work to support themselves. They can't access any health or government benefits and survive purely on the charity of refugee support groups.

Mr Aminov believed he and his parents were to be deported. He had been denied a hearing with the Immigration Minister. What else was he to do? Put yourself in this position, BD. I know it's hard for people like you to do that, but just try. What would you, as a young and fit 28-year-old trying to support and protect your aging parents, have done?

There is no way this discussion begins and ends with a photograph. The subject of the photo is not at all the irrelevancy you claim it to be. It's a living breathing man in desperate need whose plight has been aggravated by the callous mistreatment he's received at the hands of the Australian Government.

The cruel irony that the photo was taken by a member of that government is extremely pertinent.

Bronwyn,

I hadn't read that particular news article. Thanks for posting it. I am not sure what to make of it. Eg:

The witness said Mr Bidgood retracted that comment and said the money should be donated to a charity.

"How much are they worth?" is a question, not a comment. I am not sure how you retract a question like that. It sounds to me like the contortions of a journo doing a beat up to make a good story. By the by, the stories given by News and Fairfax seem to conflict in precisely the directions you expect they would give one got the photos, and one didn't.

That aside, we have no idea why Bidgood was asking the question. You, still without any evidence assume it is for personal gain. If I was planning to use the photographs to get a donation to my charity, my first step would be to establish their worth.

Bronwyn: "Bidgood was right there on the spot .... It would have taken the same amount of time to run forward and say something to the effect of, 'Don't do this. I'm a politician. I might be able to help.'"

From Graham Y's blog (link above), which I took at face value:

"But the photos are actually taken after the event, and they include police who are acting to save the subject from himself."

You have evidence this wasn't the case, Bronwyn? If not, your description of events is just another example of your over-active imagination.

Oh, and a request for future. It was fairly easy in this case to track down the actual copy given your reference. But if you are quoting from the web, a link is so much easier again. It only counts as one word too.

rstuart
The problem is that we can read a number of different articles on this issue and still be none the wiser.

It boils down to: a)if he did it for money he is bad or b) if he did it for charity he is not so bad even if a bit insensitive.

We will never know for sure but as I said before we all make mistakes and the best we hope for ourselves and others is we learn and move on.

Given Grahams blog, and the certainty a charity got the money.
Given that the news factory that bought the photos made the story.
It is clear no crime has been committed.
Bronwyn maybe let us have an insight into her reason for finding fault.
She clearly has strong feelings about why the man did this, why those feelings should be carried over to the taking of photos escapes me.
Look at the billions of feet of news film, even more news photos, and tell me it is not a beat up.
Will that paper inform us every time it pays for such a photo?
If the man, suffering as he undoubtedly is, knew no one would see what he was doing or pretending to do would he do it?
More than a paper used the Medea that day.

I'm really shocked at the failure of the majority of posters here (and elsewhere) to give even passing reference to the contextual reasons why James Bidgood M.P. thought taking a photo of a failed self-immolation attempt might be of interest to the media and in turn to the general public.

What was the substantive issue? Marat Aminov, an Australian with a permanent Australian visa, doused himself with petrol and threatened to set himself alight on the steps of the Australian Parliament as part of a drawn-out campaign to get a permanent visa for his parents. The family has been in Australia for 11 years after escaping from Latvia.

In frustration with the lack of action by Australian Immigration, Mr Aminov had also previously tried to bring attention to his cause by jumping on to the floor of parliament. In October, he had interjected while parliament was in session.

The last I heard of this family, Mr Aminov was recovering in Canberra along with his mother, Alija Aminova, a diabetic, who needed medical treatment after being on a hunger strike for three days. She had collapsed in front of Parliament House after watching her son threaten to set himself alight.

So isn't anyone interested in whether the Aminovs' case has any merit? Why did they flee from Latvia? Why it has taken so long for their applications for permanent resident status after more than a decade to be settled? Why does the son has a permanent visa but his parents do not?

Does it not strike anyone else as perverse that, instead of the story being focussed on this tragic case, the media and commentators - professional and amateur alike - became fixated on the rights and wrongs of the action of an M.P. with a phone-camera? And stayed fixated on that sideshow?

Doesn't anyone care about the Aminov family?

I started the thread to talk about the beat up photos story.
But do you truly want an answer to your question?
Then answer mine, well it is Polycarps in truth.
Should we give in to this type of blackmail?
Can you be sure he intended self harm?
Or was he looking for publicity?
The rights and wrongs of his parents case have nothing to do with the thread, nothing.
I may well feel sorry for him and his parents but how many will try these tactics if we give in?
Do not brand us because we debate the thread, or because we may think different than you.
Has Australia still got the right to say who can come or stay in our country?

Belly, just to show you that I often agree, but don't bother posting, I agree weth all your posts here. Someone is out to get this bloke, & has done the mountain/molehill thing.

Thanks hasbeen, it is no surprise that we agree on much, the charm of being Aussie is that we can agree.
Line up on election day talk as we move toward the booths, vote in different ways, but not fight over it.
The fact is in most things, most people agree.
The thread however,for me if no one else highlights one great difference.
For some, not near a majority, facts are not allowed to get in the way of a firmly held bias.
Be it politics or life, some defend the idea without regard to truth or reality, some one wants this bloke, maybe in time they will get him, but not because he took these photos, or sold them.