Dan Riehl notes a picture taken of the picture takers at today’s Grand Central Station explosion — which, these days, is everyone: “[W]hat caught my eye via Drudge
was this picture. Everyone is taking video, or snapping photos with their cell phones. I imagine they easily outnumber the journalists doing the same.” (HT to IP.)
Yes, we’re all on board — journalism is something you do, not something you “are,” i.e., not a privileged caste. True. And for my part, I love my Blackberry Pearl with its camera.
But I’m not sure I love this development from the point of view of being people, as opposed to being journalists, all the time. I used to be an avid amateur photographer — yearbook editor, the whole thing. Always with the camera. Later on I realized that this was a pretty geeky way to go through life, at least as a teenager (think “AV club”). When I started having a family, I made a conscious decision not to get a video camera. Sometimes when I see the little snippets of movin’ pitchers with my kids on them from when they were little, I wonder whether I made a mistake. But I had decided that I didn’t want to experience videos of my experiences at the expense of the experiences themselves. As a photo-bug I realized I was not living in the moment, ever; I was living in anticipation of how the pictures of the moment would look.
Okay, now this was not a fun or a warm or a happy moment — it was an explosion. Someone was killed, unfortunately. But in general, I feel the reality of life slipping away in favor of not only the virtual, but the digital or, perhaps, the digitized. Do we all really have to be journalists, all the time?
UPDATE: Links to this from Glenn Reynolds and Ed Driscoll — always nice of a late Wednesday night, and my first hookup with Ed — yet I can’t help but think they didn’t either of them read the whole piece! They both elided right past a classic, “It is true … but” throwaway acknowledgment formula used all the time to make a completely opposite point — by journalists.