For a video shoot recently, in preparation of an enterprise story, we were interviewing an older gentleman. I was working with one of most experienced and capable videographers who has seen it all, natural disasters, danger, you name it. So this was tame by comparison, to say the least. Most of the time, the dangers I'm reporting on are economic.
We had about 30 minutes to get set, under the watchful eye of the attending public relations professional. During this time, which was something of a luxury, the photographer gets the shot right waiting for the source, works with lighting and gauges the room for noise.
At virtually the last minute, this same professional asks if we can shoot the subject's "best side". It was a surprise for a number of reasons. One was that we'd had a half-hour to prepare the shot. Secondly, there's no way anyone else would have a way of knowing that one side or the other was best.
The photographer had the right reply to the PR person, which was to say that we didn't have time to re-set the shot, mindful that we're not in the business of worrying about "best sides". That's movie making, industrial films and commercials. If there had been a medical issue, or something truly worth worrying about, it is possible we would have taken under consideration. But this was vanity and PR run amok.
As it worked out, no one would have ever known the difference, and I was glad that we stood our ground on a fabricated issue.
The episode served as a reminder that even visual considerations must be weighed as journalists look to provide balance. Proper lighting is a necessary technical concern. Protecting the source's best side is not.
No comments:
Post a Comment