My career choice (communications/video production) doesn't ordinarily make print unless they're in movie credits. This morning, however, I have to thank the Michigan city of Warren for resurrecting my career from the printed media dead.
As most people in this area know, Warren has been crushed by cronyism and backdoor politics for over a decade now. In an incident aired on city TV October 25th and accessed thru YouTube, we can find evidence of censorship, refusal to follow orders, and an attempted arrest.
None of this involved council or mayor; it involved the head of the Cable Communications department; a post I held for another entity some years back.
To sum up briefly: Each city has its own standards when it comes to cablecasting meetings. Particular in this instance is the audience commentary part of the meeting, where residents are free to address the council with their concerns. Where individual standards come into play is whether the camera shows residents' faces or not as the council is being addressed.
In my teachings, it is not always advisable to focus straight on a face, lest the person be accused of grandstanding & showing up the council. That, however, would be left to the higher-ups to decide & act upon should that situation arise. Residents must be respected, but the council body they elect should be shown that same level. I would "split the middle" and show a medium shot of the council and the person addressing. But I will never shoot the back of a person's head if I can help it.
This was the focus of the last fifteen minutes of the Warren meeting in question, as analyzed here. The resident demanded to be heard and seen; however the image remained in a wide shot where you could not tell who was talking. The council president agreed with the resident's concerns and asked the director for a closeup. That closeup was not provided, drawing the ire of the council. Even pleads & downright demands from councilpeople who walked over towards the cameraperson went unheeded. Shouts were made about censorship & discrimination; the resident requested the cable coordinator be removed from office, and that the cameraperson should be arrested for refusing to follow a direct council order.
That took total guts by whomever was in charge of the cablecast. The coordinator is hired at the pleasure of the council, and is expected to follow city rules & procedures as dictated by that body. A director cannot defy the council, chiefly because they are side-stepping the chain of command. Concerns are welcome, but must be addressed correctly. In being addressed, the director/cameraperson allegedly let profanity erupt, yet muted the sound when the council read the charge of the refusal.
There's no gray areas with government; things must be done their way because it's law. Profanity aside; meetings cannot be censored or cut in any way. FCC mandate specifies that once a meeting taping starts, the taping can only end by conclusion of the meeting, or under extreme circumstances such as power failure (and even then, reasonable explanation can be given). What if the outcry to arrest that cameraperson went through and authorities wanted to examine the evidence?
I'm pretty sure the two crewpersons in question have been cut; if not before now, in the next few days. I know what you're thinking: would I dare venture into a jungle like that? I certainly would.
I'd love the challenge. They need respect & professionalism. And that's what I would bring them.
