#1 2011-04-27 21:43:55
I've focused on photos intently almost 50 years. I shot my first Wareham Town Meeting exactly 40 year ago.
Last night, toward the end of the nitrogen debate, I looked up to see the moderator, not at the podium but a yard away, blocking my view of the stage, back toward me.
Claire Smith turned and declared no photos during a vote, a defacto secret ballot, if you forget the same images are still captured to WCTV.
This make sense when most carry a camera in their pocket? When the future of 20,000 is decided by 100? When record low voter turnout in the last election erases all doubt? This administration has intentionally shut them out.
Fitting, I suppose, the next image is the last flash photo I took at Wareham Town Meeting.
Mary Jane Pillsbury - Town Meeting - 2007-05-01 Tue 9:06:43pm
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Offline
#2 2011-04-28 22:13:38
Spring Town Meeting - 2011-04-26 Tue 8:16:09pm
Andrew Griffith, Wareham Week's photographer, told me Tuesday night the paper needed only one shot. Anything more, he said, became a file photo, archived to maybe illustrate subsequent stories.
Meeting story photos only interest me when they document unfolding drama in sequence and make the narrative easier to follow.
Spring Town Meeting - 2011-04-26 Tue 7:34:57pm
Spring Town Meeting 2011-04-26 Tue 7:39:22pm
I didn't ask Lisa Bindas why she was shooting but she was polite and unobtrusive. We are all Wareham voters and all of us struggled with that room's rotten lighting. And each of us should wonder what happened to all that generous Makepeace Neighborhood Fund money the HS got to fix the problem and didn't. Incandescent lights, guys. Stoneage technology. Please?
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Last edited by billw (2011-04-29 04:55:32)
Offline
#3 2011-04-28 22:20:04
Please note, all modern cameras bombard their targets with flashes of light to determine focus, aperture and speed. Complaints about discrete flashing are bullshit.
Offline
