Sen. Larry Craig interview setting.

[Chicago Dog]

I'm all for putting up lights and making the interview look nice. However, did anyone else find the placement of the pictures in the interview somewhat over-the-line? It seems as if the photos were placed there quite deliberately for the interview.

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee197/chicago_dog/Untitled-1-1.jpg

Might as well have thrown him in a "World's Greatest Dad" sweatshirt.

[bluetito]

Of course the photos were put there on purpose. Who cares, that's just making a pretty pic. I don't give a dang about that. What bugged me were these two things:

1. None of the cameras matched in color settings- esp. Lauer cam and Craig cam. Craig had a greenish hue to his pic. Matt's shot looked great.

2. The wide three shot as well as the two shot of Craig and wife were both out of focus. Looked like mini DV cams on auto focus.

Seemed like the crews were not in sync. DP must have been cringing violently while watching that one. Anybody a part of it know what happened?

[Chicago Dog]

Of course the photos were put there on purpose. Who cares, that's just making a pretty pic. I don't give a dang about that.

I think it's an improper use of the pictures. It's not just "making a pretty pic." There's serious character questions about this guy -- adding these photos into the shot shows lacking conscious knowledge of visual objectivity.

[bluetito]

Besides the photogs of this world, nobody paid attention to the placement or the content of the photos in this shot. And even if you were an objective viewer why do you have a problem with the "conscious knowledge of visual objectivity" of this shot?

And what the f do you mean by "conscious knowledge of visual objectivity" anyway?

What if that chest with photos was really sitting in the living room as it is depicted?

Would you then have lost your "conscious knowledge of visual objectivity?"

[Chicago Dog]

And what the f do you mean by "conscious knowledge of visual objectivity" anyway?

I don't understand how you can ask this question, yet refer to it as if you understand what it means twice more in your response. But, to save this thread from an early descent into uselessness, I'll just steer us back on-course:

Besides the photogs of this world, nobody paid attention to the color settings of the cameras.

[shootercub]

Nope.. I didn't consider those photos over-the-line at all.

Who cares?

The Senator wanted a chance to speak his peace and wanted family photos included. I don't see anything wrong with that.
We shoot photographs on a daily basis for the rest of the poor shmucks that make the evening news.

[Baltimore Shooter]

I got tired of watching the interview. Every couple of minutes, the Senator would get up to go to the restroom :D

Warren

[Freddie Mercury]

I got tired of watching the interview. Every couple of minutes, the Senator would get up to go to the restroom :D

Warren


That was just his stall tactic. :p

[Foxwood]

The pictures prevent us from seeing him toe tap Lower.

[eb]

I saw veteran photog, Mike Simon's name on the credits. He's tops.
I didn't notice any problems with the lighting or color - for the 5 minutes I watched.

As for the photos in the foreground - lets assume they were set there in the foreground for visual impact. They are family photographs, right? They are in his family home. He is sitting with his wife in their home.

Interviews are staged. We set people in places, light up rooms, change furniture around if needed to get angles. We do this all the time. It doesn't alter the truth or relevent content. It doesn't mislead the viewers. Relevent content was not falsely created. No harm, no foul. The dude is a family man. He has pictures. I don't understand how this could be a problem. Because most interviews are staged.

[eb]

Of course, another option might have existed....perhaps. They might have taken some magazines stashed in his closet and placed those in the foreground.

Relevent truth?

My point is not to mock his situation, his legal problems, or sexual proclivities. I simply write this...to point out that perhaps, in this case, putting family photos in the foreground...might indeed sway truthful realities. I don't know. But it is safe to say...if you are in his living room shooting an interview (not in his closet) you are safe in using items from the living room - photographs - as staging devices.

[AB]

Normally, I agree with the sentiment that pictures in somebody's home are a part of any living room. Placing them to make a shot aesthetically pleasing is no big deal.

But the core of this story goes to this man possibly portraying himself as something he's not. The photos aren't there to make the shot look nice. They're there to say "look at what a wonderful family man this is, there is no way he went into that bathroom looking for sex."

Also, not knowing who else was on hand, it's very probable the Senator's staffers were there helping with the setting and moving things around. There might have been stipulations for the interview setting.

[Chicago Dog]

Those are all excellent points, AB, and that's what I was trying to point out -- I just couldn't put it into words after somewhat of a long day yesterday.

Thanks!

[svp]

(This comment is directed to all photographers on this board)

If you've ever rearranged furniture or set up lights for an interview then you staged the interview which means you are a hypocrit if you get on these guys for moving pictures around. Staging is the norm for intrviews so it doesn't really matter. Does anyone on this board just walk up to interviews rolling and asking questions with no thought to the surroundings (and not using a toplight) for every interview you do? If so, you're probably a VJ but that is the only way to do an interview without it being staged. How many of you tell the subject where to stand for an interview on a daily basis? Guess what, that's staging.

[Chicago Dog]

If you've ever rearranged furniture or set up lights for an interview then you staged the interview which means you are a hypocrit if you get on these guys for moving pictures around.

"Boy, had that chair been turned fifteen degrees counter-clockwise, I might believe that guy didn't kill his own grandmother for a Klondike bar. I say fry the bastard."

[Land Rover]

I wonder if doing the interview in the Men's Room of an airport would have been a more appropriate setting.

[shootercub]

I wonder if doing the interview in the Men's Room of an airport would have been a more appropriate setting.

Yea... And maybe we should have placed the Senator in a mens room stall with a gloryhole at his side.. Afterall, we are talking about his character.. Or maybe he's more of a bathhouse kinda guy....

Given those choices, I'd have to pick his family photos.

[Old Shooter]

I totally disagree with SVP on this one. Obviously even by being in a room with a camera we are effecting the interview.

There are things that we do everyday that are needed to make TV. Getting a subject to slow down so that we can sequence or putting enough foot candles on a subject are examples. These things are necessary to make things aesthetically pleasing but have no effect editorially. I have no problem with that. (I know others do)
That being said, if the pictures were moved to have a nice foreground element he has changed the editorial tembre of the interview and I see that as wrong. Had he placed a potted plant in the same position I don't have any objections at all.
If the pictures were there all the time or were placed there prior to the crew arrival I could go either way.

[MtnShooter]

Of course, another option might have existed....perhaps. They might have taken some magazines stashed in his closet and placed those in the foreground.

His wife, poor thing, says there aren't any hidden magazines... or any hidden acts of promiscuity in his background.

Of course, the Padres and the Phillies and the Diamondbacks all thought they were going to be in the World Series... before Rocktober.

Oh, yeah. My point: The "stall tactics" comment made me spit 7-UP on the computer screen. Good one.

[AB]

(This comment is directed to all photographers on this board)

If you've ever rearranged furniture or set up lights for an interview then you staged the interview which means you are a hypocrit if you get on these guys for moving pictures around. Staging is the norm for intrviews so it doesn't really matter. Does anyone on this board just walk up to interviews rolling and asking questions with no thought to the surroundings (and not using a toplight) for every interview you do? If so, you're probably a VJ but that is the only way to do an interview without it being staged. How many of you tell the subject where to stand for an interview on a daily basis? Guess what, that's staging.

If by moving furniture, pictures or setting up mood lighting you are possibly making an editorial comment on an interview, then yes, that's a problem.

I don't care if it's "staged" by your definitions, but this is more than "moving pictures". Those pictures are there to make a statement that this man is a good, moral, family man when he is being accused of (and originally pleaded guilty to) something that seems to be just the opposite of that by his own definition.

[eb]

But the core of this story goes to this man possibly portraying himself as something he's not. The photos aren't there to make the shot look nice. They're there to say "look at what a wonderful family man this is, there is no way he went into that bathroom looking for sex."

Also, not knowing who else was on hand, it's very probably the Senator's staffers were there helping with the setting and moving things around. There might have been stipulations for the interview setting.

The Senator could be a wonderful family man, and at the same time a bathroom foot tapper. Someone can carry on a good life, and at the same time could be a murderer, embezzler, adulterer, drug addict, etc... A person can be both a sinner and a saint. It is impossible to know all sides of the person you are interviewing. If the Senator has pictures of a happy family life, do you ignore that? Then put him up against a white wall, and interview him as if he were a convict? I suspect, if you are invited into his home, you can reflect the "truth" of his home in your interview. That includes showcasing any objects or photos he has in the setting. That's how NBC approached it I suspect.

But on the other hand, I agree...these family pictures in the foreground might have had an impact on viewers as they listened to what he was saying. In the middle of his interview while he is denying gay sex accusations, those family pictures might have garnered sympathy from viewers....and make his denial easier to accept as truth. That might be altering relevent content. So it's wrong.... IF he was lying. But who knows? I don't.

I would hope the producer of NBC news had final say...about the shot. Not the Senator or his staff. I would hope these family photos were not part of a deal...to get the interview. I don't suspect that. That definately would be unethical journalism.

He is a family man. He is a Senator. So those pictures reflect those characteristics. Perhaps he does have other pictures in his closet hidden, that might reflect a different truth? That could be said for any interview setting in any home we enter.

I do get your points. It's is interesting to think about. Especially in these cases. Ethics are grey by definition.

[Shootblue]

it has that look of normalcy in terms of what one might use as a foreground object...yet doesn't have the best composition...which makes me wonder a bit.

[LuccaBrazzi]

I'm a "medium stance" kinda guy.
What about you guys?

[Chicago Dog]

I've found a better version of the set-up:

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee197/chicago_dog/Untitled-1-1.jpg

[Baltimore Shooter]

You can't tell what's in those pictures. Could be Craig and his past boyfriends.

Warren

[NEWSSHOOTER3]

I guess my question is who dun it? Did someone with NBC arrange the photos or did someone with the family? If the family did it, that's their prerogative and NBC works with, or around it. If NBC did it, I don't like it in this particular instance.

[MtnShooter]

My guess is Craig's staff, who are very likely to be out of a job soon, came up with the concept. Did you notice the photos are facing away from the room where people would normally be sitting?

For the record, and despite the fact no one asked: I'm sick to death of the Democrats' whining and the Republicans' arrogance. I'm writing-in "Picard/Ryker" on the next ballot.

Make it so, Number One.

[Chicago Dog]

My guess is Craig's staff, who are very likely to be out of a job soon, came up with the concept. Did you notice the photos are facing away from the room where people would normally be sitting?

Exactly. There's no point to facing them in that direction, except to "add" to the senator's "character."

Make it so, Number One.

"Number One, I order you to take a number two."

[quicklad]

I think it would have looked better with a couple of sex toys instead of the family photos...