Photographs Of News Events Are Of Particular Interest To Collectors

PHOTOGRAPHS OF NEWS EVENTS ARE OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO COLLECTORS

FINDING SOME VINTAGE PHOTOGRAPHS OF BREAKING NEWS EVENTS, CAN BE HIGHLY VALUABLE AND HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT

     I have old photographs that depict anglers at their craft, hockey players chasing the puck, carpenters erecting houses, builders at task, railway men, preachers, teachers in the class, livestock grazing, wildlife in pastoral scenes, farms yards; churches picnics, sporting events at arenas, real time images of cityscapes, townscapes, and charming countryside hamlets. I own a bazillion old portraits and then some, and, yes, in my collection, are dozens of spot news photographs from a bygone era, as shown in the published images above. These are images taken of several accident scenes, in the Orillia area, snapped by an amateur photographer, and not by a news reporter getting for coverage. I actually prefer acquiring photographs that have never been published previously, (and never intended to be) of news events, some minor, some major, taken as snapshots, without any idea of ever having them published in newspapers or magazines for financial gain. I look at these as being the most honest representations, initiated out of curiosity, but without any particular focus on framing as a reporter would impose, knowing what the editor of the home newspaper wants for news coverage, as far as photo content. Each editor has a different interest in news photography, cropping of images, and subject material acceptable to their publication's readership.
    When I worked for The Herald-Gazette, in Bracebridge, back in the 1980's, we had a strict policy about how much we would show in terms of the carnage (debris field) at accident scenes. Especially those involving fatalities. On one occasion, I slipped up as editor, when I didn't spot something that should have been obvious, on a frame selected from a contact sheet of negatives. It would prove offensive to a quarter of our readers and especially friends and family of the victim. In the corner of the photograph of the destroyed vehicle, that had been involved a rollover on a country road, a small portion of yellow tarpaulin was visible in the front page, above the fold, news flick. It was a great hard news photograph and was taken by a cracker jack reporter, who always got us fantastic front pagers each week.
    Most of us, and not just newspaper / media folks, who chase first responders for breaking news events, realize that yellow tarpaulins at accident scenes, are typically used to conceal the deceased, on the ground, having been thrown from vehicles, or ones who have yet to be freed from vehicles, for any number of reasons. The morning this picture greeted customers on the news-stands of our community, I began getting nasty phone calls, and in fact, some personal threats that I certainly hadn't anticipated when we decided as a news department, to run the image on the front page. When it was drawn to my attention, that the tarpaulin was clearly visible, meaning a loved one was still in that car, I nearly fainted. It was our rule as a news staff and publication, never to be this graphic, and it was tough to convince friends and family that it was not our intention to reveal so much; but I drew the line on them telling us we were wrong to run the picture of the car in the first place. I informed them, that despite the terrible realities of the accident, which killed one and injured two passengers, it was news the public had a right to know more about, and we were, afterall, a newspaper given this task of representing news responsibly. I was wrong to have published this particular photo, and I paid the price for months after this, but learned just how sensitive our readership was, and how close to the line we had been in the past, presenting these accident scene photos.
     My point is, that our reporters framed photographs of news events, with the camera lens, as if they were going to be published on the front page of our newspaper. An amateur photographer, not saddled with that responsibility, of returning to the newspaper with a suitable image the readership approves, takes random, helter skelter flicks, without the restrictions reporters often must adhere because of publishing protocols. This means that these photos are not in any way taken for publication qualities, or staged, which could simply mean a reporter waiting, camera in hand, for the perfect opportunity, the perfect composition of carnage and first responder, to click the shutter.
     Here's an example. Back in the early 1980's there was a serious fire in a house on Manitoba Street, in Bracebridge, which started in the retail shop below. When we got there, just after the fire department arrived, we numbered three news photographers compared to the opposition publication's one reporter. It was a very, very attractive scene for news photographers, because there was lots of illumination from the street, and the fire department lamps, and despite it being late at night, it seemed like daytime for us with cameras slung around our necks. It was even the case that our flash units were really only infilling a small amount of light onto our subjects; the trained lenses tightly framing the actions and reactions of the first responders, going in, and coming out of the burning building. Fortunately, other than the obvious exhaustion of fire fighters, there were no injuries during that event.
    But here's the thing. We were conspiring as a threesome, to run a photo spread in the next issue, while still on the site of the fire, planning on using the best photographs from the bunch, which added up to about a dozen rolls of 36 frame film. That got me in trouble let me tell you. As the fire was reduced down to a smoldering ash inside a now hollow building, we were pondering when the huge front window was going to be smashed out; as in previous fires, it was usually the first or second big smash we'd hear, when we arrived on scene. This being done by firefighters, to avoid it blowing out when air pressure builds from the fire, such as with the air currents associated with backdraft. Breaking it in advance could avoid it exploding into a crowd of emergency responders, sending dangerous glass shards into the air with considerable propulsion. I've watched it happen, and seen the result of unprotected bystanders getting cut from flying glass. Considering we had all the images we needed to fill two full newspapers, but could only afford a single page photo spread, we decided to get one last shot, of the front window being smashed by a fire fighter. We supposed, that for no other reason, than it had survived the entire time of the raging fire, without so much as a fracture on the large double glass pane, that it would be neat to capture on film when it was finally smashed to smitherines. With cameras ready, we watched a fireman step up to the side of the window, on the outside, and with a determined perfectly aimed, one handed swing of a fire axe, smashed the glass pane while our power winders on the cameras, gave us an almost moving picture profile of the last act of a fire having been fully extinguished. It's not like the window could be saved or anything, but we new, as reporters, having covered hundreds of fire events, it would have to go anyway, for safety reasons, and for reporting posterity, we wanted to catch the moment of impact. Yup, it was the next best thing to asking the firemen to do it, so that we could capture it on film. After all that, I think we decided it wasn't dramatic enough to make the grade of the photo spread, and probably hit the cutting room floor.
     A hobby photographer, as we see today in the billions, utilizing their camera phones to capture newsworthy occurrences, aren't as concerned about winning a photographic award, as they are demonstrating their prowess as cub reporters; with the idea that a news media outlet will pick it (a good newsworthy image or video) up for their viewership. It's certainly the case today, publishing the best images of an event or news happening, becomes an objective. Whereas, in the day the photographs above were snapped, the individual with the camera probably had no intent of sending it, or them to a newspaper, with hopes of landing a front page spot. And, making a little cash for the effort. It's why they are sought after, right back to the very first photographic images. Amateur photos are innocent, naive efforts, to capture interesting scenes and events, without the restrictions professionals place upon themselves, to get the best result and perfect images for media use. It's not that there is any shortfall in this effort, at providing perfect images, suitable for publication. Gosh, it's admirable and profitable to do so! It's just that in terms of being collectable, I'd sooner have a photograph that has never been published before, or professionally taken, such that the person who took the flick, if they were alive, would be astonished that something they had captured by little more than happenstance, and good fortune, would merit such admiration from the future, because of innocent framing of real life in real time.
     Consider the importance of all camera images, all photographers, all camera holders, amateur or professional, who snapped photos in the hour before, and hour after the asasination, of President John F. Kennedy, in Dallas, Texas, that November day in 1963. Was there a second shooter? Who was in the crowd that day, in various places and situations, along the route the President's motorcade was to follow? Were these images sought by investigators, wanting to know if there were any known individuals, other than Lee Harvey Oswald, who might have had interest in killing the American President? There have been many instances of amateur photographs being used to solve crimes. And you've undoubtedly seen many times, on the television news, how amateur video has assisted police, or in some cases, revealed police abuses, leading to charges and discipline being administered. But of course, today, there is an obsession with recording actions and reactions, and it has, in itself, led to abuses and misrepresentation; citizens becoming reporters and interpreting news, without any qualifications as journalists, who know there's more to a story than what a picture, or video reveals of actuality. In the old days, this wasn't as much an issue, as the media then was a mere shadow of what it has become today, as far as relaying news, and its publication for a world wide audience; which has become an almost instantaneous reality, from the very second of an occurrence unfolding.
     As an old-time reporter, used to strict protocols of operation, I am both astonished, and a little alarmed, at what few qualifications are needed to make the nightly news these days. I like the quick coverage, in the cause of the "public's right to know," but there is that proverbial slipper slope that in some cases, has already become the new normal. In my era of reporting, I might have made twenty-five bucks, if a daily newspaper picked up a photo I'd taken of a major event, or celebrity sighting. It meant a case of beer that week. And a nice photo credit. For an amateur who got an even better photo of the same event, or celebrity? Not a dime. Simply because it was kept under raps, in a photo album or box, as one would expect of the handiwork of a hobby photographer. So when, after all these years, the settling of an estate, for example, finally releases these important images that were never meant to be made pub\lic, (or that have been previously published), it's an exciting bazinga moment for the new owner; which I always hope will be me. There is a value in these old spot news photographs, especially ones that have never been viewed by anyone else than friends and family of the hobby photographer.