The first lesson while filming the news is “don’t get involved”. The video footage below apparently shows this camerawoman deliberately sticking her leg out tripping a father with his son clutched to his arms.
Since this act of stupidity the camerawoman has been sacked.
The Police Officer let go after he saw the child. She didn’t film the “passage” because busy creating the accident, then resumed filming the outcome (that she created). That’s unethical to say the least, and absolutely inappropriate for both news operators and humans (as humans). I agree with the decision of the station to terminate the employment as she could cause complications to other reporters in the future. Talking about the other reporters and cameramen I applaud the coverage of the incident that became “news” (sadly). (maybe she thought that nobody was watching…).
What a stupid thing to do! She is(was) a camerawoman, whats wrong with her?
I saw another footage with this “camerawoman” hiting little girl!
‘Lucky” guy who will marry her…
Maybe a quick edit? Stupid, yes, very. “Don’t get involved” – rather misses the mark, Phillip. “Gets sacked for her efforts” – possibly initially open to some mis interpretation. She has just potentially badly damaged the reputation of photo journalists. Really clever. Please make your views crystal clear – you have the clout to do something good here for the profession you obviously love.
Bob , let’s open a discussion here: and your point is? Should I ask you to make your views crystal clear too because I truly can’t understand your post. About the reputation: now it’s indeed crystal clear that because of idiots like this one here the entire community will suffer. Remember the other idiot who added bombs with photoshop (on stills) in Lebanon many years ago? Because of that idiot the new guidelines for filing didn’t allow any (ANY) correction and stills had to be filed as shot. No levels, no crops, no nuthing. Think about our colleagues shooting sports with a 400mm . Wonder why the new still cameras had such a potent increase in brightness and noise reduction. To put this into a (possible) perspective the published is linked to a certain political movement, and even them had to fire her. But I don’t charge her for the hate, I charge her for creating the accident and shooting the outcome that she created immediately after. That alone holds a valid reason to terminate her employment.
This person is not a photo journalist.
She is a nasty person who happens to have taken up photo journalism.
Glad the employer sacked her and hope future employers take the time to do a background check.