PDA

View Full Version : Do I need glasses now...why is the News all blurred?


Argonautical
12th Mar 2008, 10:26
Why is the blurring of people or their faces becoming more frequent on British news programs? I can perhaps see the case for primary school children but in last night's edition of Midlands Today, they ran a feature on forced marriages in the Asian community. One scene showed a few Asians walking down a public street in Stoke-on-Trent which the BBC deemed necessary to make indistinct by blurring everything. Why?

Has the law changed about filming people in public? I understood that one does not own "one's copyright" if you are in a public space, which means you can't stop people from filming or photographing you. Has this been changed recently because this blurring in British news programs seems to be a very recent thing and also seems to be increasing to the point of the news becoming unviewable? Are other countries being effected by this blurring phenomenon?

tony draper
12th Mar 2008, 10:40
Well those peeps prolly think the camera will steal their souls. :rolleyes:

bnt
12th Mar 2008, 10:41
I don't want to be filmed, close-up, in public places, thank you. Being looked at in public - which you expect - is not the same as being filmed. A look is fleeting, and fades from memory: film or video is permanent. The camera can see more than the eye, depending on the lens and how it's set up. 20 years from now, people might see you picking your nose, in glorious HD... :eek:

Or it might just be an artistic decision, because faces catch your attention, and you can be influenced by the look on someone's face. It might pull you away from whatever the film-maker is trying to get across. If they're showing a street scene as background to e.g. a discussion on gangs or drugs, faces would be a distraction.

Dan D'air
12th Mar 2008, 10:58
I don't want to be filmed, close-up, in public places, thank you.

You should try living in England, with the amount of CCTV here nowadays we should all think about joining Equity.

Avitor
12th Mar 2008, 11:09
You should try living in England, with the amount of CCTV here nowadays we should all think about joining Equity. Dan.

======================================================

Ah! but that is for the Gestapo.

hellsbrink
12th Mar 2008, 11:10
Argo,

Nowadays (in UK) anyone who films you has to get your "pemission" to use the shots in any way, same as you can ask for any images of you to be removed from CCTV archives (for a "processing fee" which varies from organisation to organisation) provided they do not show you doing something criminal.

Also, I'm afraid, it's also the old "religious senstivity" thing too, which could explain a lot since it is the BBC you are talking about.

bnt
12th Mar 2008, 11:15
You should try living in England, with the amount of CCTV here nowadays we should all think about joining Equity.
Oh, I know - I used to live in London. :} On the few occasions when that footage ends up on TV, I see they use blurring too.

If I used a public toilet, I sometimes wondered if there was anyone watching the cubicles, since that's where all manner of... dodgy stuff goes on, not out in open areas. My reasoning led me to the conclusion that the cubicles are not being watched, because the dodgy stuff still goes on, and I don't think the council would want to employ the kind of person who'd be happy watching people do their business in toilet cubicles, for 8 hours a day. :yuk:

hellsbrink
12th Mar 2008, 11:16
Can't have people watching the cubicles, the gay rights mob would be on you like a shot (figuratively speaking, of course)

Dan D'air
12th Mar 2008, 11:20
Can't have people watching the cubicles, the gay rights mob would be on you like a shot

Ooh er...............

Curious Pax
12th Mar 2008, 11:20
I think it's more to do with the subject matter to which the film is providing the wallpaper - if the item is about airport security for example then they won't blur the faces, as there is no implicit suggestion that the passengers are doing anything wrong. However in the example given there is a risk of implying that those pictured are involved in forced marriages.

To use an extreme example - how about if they were running an item about how people with ginger hair and glasses were all likely to be serial killers, and illustrated it with film of a randomly picked ginger-haired bespectacled bloke ambling down the street? Assuming that he wasn't a serial killer I would think he would have quite a good case for suing on the grounds that his guilt was being implied, and they were endangering him. In a country where chavs will attack paediatricians in confusion with paedophiles I don't think his case would be particularly unreasonable.

labrador pup
12th Mar 2008, 12:37
I have a ready made reply to anyone who complains about me photographing them - look pal you never asked my permission to get your ugly face in my photo so we'll call it quits. :E

Sallyann1234
12th Mar 2008, 13:17
If I used a public toilet, I sometimes wondered if there was anyone watching the cubicles, since that's where all manner of... dodgy stuff goes on, not out in open areas.
Our toilets at work have lights controlled by movement sensors to save on electricity.
A new and rather suggestible girl was told to be careful what she did in there because the lights were switched on and off by a security guard watching on a camera in 'that red thing on the ceiling'.
She was appalled and walked around all day with her legs crossed.

CUNIM
12th Mar 2008, 17:06
Can't have people watching the cubicles, the gay rights mob would be on you like a shot

Fairy nuff ;)

Loose rivets
12th Mar 2008, 17:14
I wondered what had happened to my face!! I thought it was just old age. Feckin' camera people :ooh:

jaycee58
12th Mar 2008, 23:21
I used to worry about being filmed while out with my girlfriend...my wife would not have been pleased :}

Krystal n chips
13th Mar 2008, 08:22
Nah, your all wrong.....the visual aspect of the news is blurred to compliment the way the verbal aspect is presented. At least by some of those who suffer from the condition known as "Dramiticus Reportorixtoxicosis"....:E

Frustratin' Approach
14th Mar 2008, 10:44
If I used a public toilet, I sometimes wondered if there was anyone watching the cubicles, since that's where all manner of... dodgy stuff goes on, not out in open areas.

Not exclusively, apparently.

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1859677.mostviewed.gay_sex_caught_on_camera. php

You never know who you might catch.

http://www.lgf.org.uk/news/276/75/