Reuters White House photographer Jason Reed describes how the president made his speech to a single TV camera, then immediately after finishing, he pretended to speak for the still cameras.
Reed writes:
“As President Obama continued his nine-minute address in front of just one main network camera, the photographers were held outside the room by staff and asked to remain completely silent. Once Obama was off the air, we were escorted in front of that teleprompter and the President then re-enacted the walk-out and first 30 seconds of the statement for us.”
That means the photograph that appeared in many newspapers Monday morning of Obama speaking may have been the staged shot, captured after the president spoke. This type of staging has been going on for decades.
[…]
Other photographers who work at the White House told Poynter.org that since the Reagan era (and possibly before) it has been the standard operating procedure that during a live presidential address, still cameras are not allowed to photograph the actual event.
The argument is that this is how it’s always been done, even since before Reagan. It’s nothing new instituted under the Obama Administration and doesn’t seem controversial, so long as publications note that it’s a staged photo and not a live capture.
But this practice of re-enacting a historic speech flies directly in the face of the National Press Photographers Association Code of Ethics, which includes this relevant passage: “Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.”
Poynter notes that while Reuters and the AP disclosed that it was a reenactment, not all newspapers did so.
It is time for this kind of re-enactment to end. The White House should value truth and authenticity. The technology clearly exists to document important moments without interrupting them. Photojournalists and their employers should insist on and press for access to document these historic moments.
I don’t think this story is a big deal (especially in the context of current events; can the White House please release the bin Laden photo?), although I agree with the conclusion that our hi-def video capabilities make it to where stagings of this sort are unnecessary. We’ve used screencaps here on Big Journalism and I’ve seen them used elsewhere and they do as much justice to the story as a still. Who cares if you can hear the shutter sounds? The viewing audience understands that the press is working to capture still moments to accompany the broadcast. We’re not going for crystal-clear, Emmy quality audio engineering, we’re going for the sole purpose of informing the American public.