Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Was Carlos Miller Really Censored?

When Carlos Miller recently posted a story about a New Mexico police officer engaging in intercourse on the hood of a car in full view of a video camera [see right], he never thought it would cause controversy in the front office of Pixiq, the website that hosts his blog called Photography Is Not A Crime [PINAC].

As The Daily Censored reported...
After posting his article, Miller headed to lunch and started watching the hits rain down. But suddenly he realized that the hits had ceased at about 500, and he began wondering why the story was no longer up on his blog, which is published on Pixiq, a website run by Sterling Publishing, a subsidiary of Barnes & Noble.

“Then I get the e-mail from the editor saying, ‘we had to delete the story. It came from higher-ups because it was offensive and not about photography,’” he said.

“The story was not offensive enough for the New Mexico mainstream media, which seems conservative,” Miller wrote in a reply to his editor.
While Miller would like to make this a case of censorship, I'm pretty sure that his contract with Pixiq gives them full authority to remove content from any of their contributors that they want. In this case, they had a problem with the graphic nature of the material and decided to remove it. That isn't censorship. That's Pixiq exercising their editorial license.

Pixiq may have also felt that Miller's post wasn't in keeping with the stated purpose of his blog. In fact, over the years I've watched Carlos' focus slowly go from working tirelessly to preserve and protect the rights of photographers to incessantly documenting the misconduct of law enforcement personnel. Yes, the latter usually involves a camera or video taping device but often times, as in this case, there is no element of a photographer's rights being threatened or taken away. Miller took time to address that point in the Daily Censored article...
Miller acknowledges the article has nothing to do with photographers, the primary audience for the Pixiq site, but points out that he doesn’t only write about people photographing the police.

“Cameras are everywhere. That’s my thing. … They’re filming us and we’re filming them,” he said. “Here’s a big brother camera capturing a big brother cop.”

Only I don't see Miller regularly documenting other kinds of misconduct that isn't law enforcement related.

Asked for a response by SFDB, Carlos had this to say...
It's true that PINAC focuses heavily on photographers who get bullied, harassed, threatened, assaulted or arrested by police officers for doing something completely legal.

But it's also true that I've always written about bad cops getting caught on camera whether it be a dash cam, a surveillance camera or a citizen's video camera.

In essence, the main focus of my blog is that nobody has an expectation of privacy in public. Not even a uniformed cop who decides to have sex with a woman on the hood of a car in broad daylight.

And while it's true that Pixiq does have the right to remove the article under my current contract with them, it is not smart journalism to remove a story after it's been up for more than hour. That gets readers talking and asking questions. There is a number of other ways they could have handled it.

Also, they knew what my blog was about when they approached me to join them last year. In fact, this was one of my main concerns, the fact that I don't always write about photographers. But they said they loved my blog and wanted me to join (this particular editor is no longer there).

Nevertheless, the current editors didn't have a problem with my story on the San Diego cop who was recorded on a surveillance video buying cookies for a kid in McDonald's minutes before he was gunned down in his car.

That had nothing to do with photographers. But it had everything to do with the power of the camera.

And this last story they deleted was no different.

Working under Pixiq's umbrella has resulted in a wider audience for Miller. But it comes with a price that he is now starting to realize. The big question, of course, is how much freedom is Miller willing to sacrifice for that larger audience. How many "hits" and how much money is it worth to him?

Well, Carlos sort of answers that at Spatial Orientation...
At first, Miller was seriously considering jumping ship and moving to a different site, but now he is intent on mending the fence and moving forward, saying, “For now I’ll stick with them and hopefully we can just put it behind us.” Miller is looking to insert preventative measures into his new contract to avoid a repeat. He knows his work can be controversial and opinionated, but he also knows that Pixiq needs to sell ads, and he wants them to sell ads, asserting, “I just want to keep the site going and keep writing. I want to put this behind us because I have other stories to work on, news stories that have impact. This is a learning experience for everybody.”


.

20 comments:

Carlos Miller said...

It was also one of my better headlines.

Maria de los Angeles said...

Was it just because of the nature of the photo?

Carlos Miller said...

That and the "verbage."

Mike LaMonica said...

The guy was photographed in a public place (in fact county owned property) where he had no expectation of privacy. Carlos writes mostly about police and other officials not knowing the "rules" on this. I thought this was fair game as a post. If the Pixiq editors saw this another way, oh well. It's their site. I don't see this as censored so much as brutally edited.

I just learned from CBS news that the officer has now been fired. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20102120-504083.html

We all have our mission statements and our risk tolerances. Seems like the mainstream media has a greater risk tolerance than Pixiq on this one.

Rick said...

Good point, Mike. Usually, it's the other way around.

.

Maria de los Angeles said...

I read the original post, Carlos. It didn't seem out of line compared to what you usually write.

Just wondering if Pixiq has some kind of PG rule regarding sexual images or content.

I second what Mike said. "Brutally edited."

South Florida Lawyers said...

This Salon article exploring the possible reasons why the photo gained such media traction was thought-provoking:

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/09/03/cop

Maria de los Angeles said...

Thanks for sharing that SFL.

When I first read this story I wondered if the man was a real cop or not and if this wasn't a hoax by some adventurous couple.

Carlos Miller said...

The answer to your original question is, yes, I was censored.

But yes, they also have the right to censor me if they wish.

While I am pissed about it and while it cost me (and them) revenue, I also have to take it as a compliment.

The only writers who get censored are the ones making waves.

I once had a story pulled when I worked at NBC Miami, but nobody noticed because it was done after a couple of days when John Timoney had his people call my editor, telling her the story was unfair (it was opinionated, as they told us to be at NBC Miami, but not inaccurate).

In this case, everybody noticed.

Bill said...

Actually, this wasn't censorship.

Censorship is something that governments engage in.

What happened in Carlos' case was something that happens at hundreds, if not thousands of newspapers across the country everyday. It's called editing.

There isn't a reporter at a major newspaper in the country that has a right to put something in the paper that doesn't pass through some sort of editing process.

I'm assuming that Carlos doesn't have to run his posts through some kind of editorial filter. The editing, it appears, takes place after something is posted.

But the company that owns the site has a right to tell Carlos what kind of material it doesn't want on its site. Because, after all, they pay the bills.

This appears to be a case of Pixiq exercising its rights as the owner of the site.

And I'm guessing they'll be paying close attention to any future posts that Carlos puts up. Very close attention.

Carlos Miller said...

If it happens again, I'm out of there.

I'll take my site and my readers with me. It will be their loss in the long run because I'll eventually find another way to fund it.

Squathole said...

Bill is correct: It's the golden rule ("The one with the gold makes the rules.") It's their property, they get to set the borders.

Carlos's attitude is exactly right, too. Good job, as usual.

Carlos Miller said...

I read the original post, Carlos. It didn't seem out of line compared to what you usually write.

Just wondering if Pixiq has some kind of PG rule regarding sexual images or content.,


Some of the most popular articles on that site (that are not mine) all contain the word "nude" in their headline and come accompanied with tastefully nude photos.

http://www.pixiq.com/search/posts/nudes

Carlos Miller said...

Bill,

Editors are a thing of the past.

Nobody is edited on many of news sites out there, including some major corporate news sites.

Unlike print, there is a certain safety cushion where you can edit a story after it's been posted.

But they've never edited me before.

Anonymous said...

I don't think censorship is limited to governments. I clearly see this as censorship. But, as it is a private company there is nothing wrong or illegal with them doing it.
Editing, in my view is somewhat different. Paragraphs weren't changed, sentence structure wasn't corrected, spelling mistakes fixed. That's editing.
Complete deletion: That's censorship.
Again, as long as it's not done by
gov't it's okay.
Wal-mart doesn't allow sale of certain music. Censorship. Allowed.

Hey, shouldn't there be video of this, not just still images? Where can I get a copy? Might be 'fun' to watch....

Anonymous said...

Perhaps not Government censorship, definitely Corporate censorship. Hardly a difference anymore.

hal said...

of course it was censored, whatever you or anyone wants to call it, its all the same. and its all BULLSHIT. very little if anything needs or should be censored, PERIOD! i am open minded and almost always leave room for the exception to the rule! which is, "NOTHING SHOULD BE CENSORED"!

Mustang Bobby said...

From the Cynic's Dictionary: "There's a difference between editorial judgment and censorship. Editorial judgment is when you do it; censorship is when someone else does it."

Rick said...

Definitions? We don't need no definitions!

.

hal said...

http://www.pixiq.com/article/nude-photography-renoux [another good example is this link, even boobies for the whole world to see in that one, many more i am sure.] i know what problem, that one was rocking the boat a bit much and had to be removed, cant have a rocking boat now can we. they will outlaw boats without seat belts soon, and dont forget your helmet, you know, the ones they dont require HOG riders to wear.

Post a Comment

Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.