Splashed across the front page of yesterday’s New York Times was a four-column photo of a man shouting at Sen. Arlen Specter at a town hall held earlier that morning in Lebanon, Pa., taken by photojournalist Damon Winter, who won the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography. The photograph neatly illustrated the recent trend of angry voters—usually white and usually seniors—confronting their senators and congressmen with practically apoplectic rage over health reform and other matters.
Tuesday’s town hall in Lebanon was Winter’s first assignment after being away on vacation. CJR spoke to him about the challenges of photographing these events.
Alexandra Fenwick: Describe the mood and atmosphere at Monday’s town hall in Lebanon.
Damon Winter: I had seen some video clips of previous town hall meetings with Senator Specter and I had seen how the crowd had really taken control of the events and shut down the speakers, and I was curious to see if that was going to happen again. It did seem he had a bit of experience under his belt after being through a few of these, and he seemed to handle it pretty well. He let the speakers have their say and just kind of calmly listened, and I think he did well to try to defuse the situations when it seemed like they were starting to heat up.
AF: You mentioned the crowd taking control of the event. There have been memos circulated online from organizers on both the right and the left about trying to get into the news media lens and approaching reporters proactively. Were people media savvy at this event? Were they coming up to you?
DW: I get the feeling that people at this point, this far into it, realize there’s a lot more media scrutiny at these events, and I think they’re much more aware that there are a lot of eyes on them and what was happening there. So I get the feeling that people were a little more careful. I don’t think we were necessarily warmly greeted as journalists covering the event. Especially a few times, once people found out I was working for The New York Times, I would get really kind of nasty remarks and these kind of things that were making assumptions that I myself or we as a newspaper had preconceived notions about them. Another photographer working for the Times that day, a freelance photographer, Jessica Kourkounis, got pushed by an audience member once they realized she was working for The New York Times.
AF: You won your Pulitzer for photos of Obama on the campaign trail that were taken on the fringe of these staged events that you kind of stepped away from and framed in a different way. What is the challenge of documenting these kinds of orchestrated events that have a scripted beginning, middle, and end?
DW: The whole event, like you say, is staged, and it’s a bit of theater in a certain way, but I think once all those elements are put together to form this staged event, once you have that event in progress, there is real life happening in between there. There are real moments even though the event may have been organized. The challenge is to find those real moments within the context of the staged events. So it involves a lot of just waiting and watching and walking and searching and looking for these little moments and paying attention to the details about what’s going on.
AF: How early did you get there and stake out where you were going to be?
DW: I got there really early [Monday]. You never know what’s going to happen and it’s always safe to get there early. It makes me feel a lot calmer to know I have the lay of the land before the event starts. They let us in about five or ten minutes before they let in the general public and then they started a half hour after that so I didn’t have any great advantage by showing up early, I just got to sort of mill about and talk to people waiting in line.
AF: You mentioned the real life pathos happening during this staged event. What drew you toward the two images you shot that ran in the Times yesterday—the front cover photo of the man shouting at Specter and the inside shot of Specter getting out of the car?
DW: The photo that ran on the front page was relatively early in the event. This gentleman, Craig Anthony Miller, he stood up within the first ten questions of the event, he just decided that this whole forum was ridiculous and not to his liking and he was upset that he felt like his Constitutional right to free speech was being trampled because they were conducting this town hall in an orderly fashion and limiting it to thirty questions. So he wasn’t really even voicing any issue having to do with health care reform or closing Guantanamo or anything like that, it was just his dislike of the forum, and I think he was one of these people who was going to be unhappy with the forum no matter what.
AF: His picture was in a lot of papers yesterday.
DW: We sent a lot of people to cover this event because there was a lot of chatter about organizing protesters and counter-protestors so it felt like it was a recipe for some real conflict. But that was about as heated as it got and you can see from the video clips how Sen. Specter handled it. Instead of trying to shut the guy up—another audience member actually got physical with him and tried to restrain him and there was potential for a scuffle there—Sen. Specter said, ‘Let the man say his piece and you’re free if you’re not happy, you’re free to leave if you want to.’ And then he did.





Re Alexandra Fenwick's question about people with 'incorrect information', does she think this - or the Town Hall phenomenon - is new? Someone at CJR explain to me why exaggerations by 'right-wing' demonstrators is newsworthy, while similar, routing hyperbole and misinformation by leftist demonstrators, which is part of the furniture of American politics, is not. Care to try interviewing a Fox News photographer or Washington Times reporter about the treatment they get at left-wing, Saul Alinsky-style demos? I guess not. Same double standard for left-wing 'truthers' vs. right-wing 'birthers' in that recent media hype. It really distorts.
Posted by Mark Richard on Thu 13 Aug 2009 at 01:00 PM
The Poynter email subject line says: No love for HYT photographers..."
And when the subject comes up in the actaul story,The interwee says:
I don’t think we were necessarily warmly greeted as journalists covering the event. Especially a few times, once people found out I was working for The New York Times, I would get really kind of nasty remarks and these kind of things that were making assumptions that I myself or we as a newspaper had preconceived notions about them. Another photographer working for the times that day, a freelance photographer, Jessica Kourkounis, got pushed by an audience member once they realized she was working for The New York Times.
So, they get to hear nasty remarks or even get pushed because the remarkers and the pushers think the photogs have preconceived notions?
What does this mean? Why should anyone care or even be mildly interested?
Posted by Alan Gottesman on Thu 13 Aug 2009 at 02:32 PM
For anybody who thinks that photographers aren't journalists, too, this article shows a very thoughtful side of a pressman that some probably never knew existed. Telling the story as the photographer is a subtle job. Now that there are very capable very affordable cameras out there, many are tempted to try it themselves. But you can always tell the pros, can't you?
Posted by Tom McElheney on Thu 13 Aug 2009 at 03:52 PM
Great insight for this long ago photojournalism major. I spent half of my life in the Lebanon, PA area and I recognize the crowd. The “dutchmen” of Lepnun, as we used to say can be a very stubborn folk and can be very set in their ways.
But for the most part, these folks are very quick with a helping hand and not afraid of hard work. (Not to sound too much like a National Geographic documentary)
I hope that the town halls will at least allow those who need to vent, to get that out of their system and then really study the facts and come to some coherent decisions regarding this very important subject of health care.
Posted by Jon on Thu 13 Aug 2009 at 04:16 PM
My question for Mr. Spector would be - what took so long to realize the RNC was going Religiously Fantatic?? That C Street and The Family has become "the mob" of our elected officials? This Tom Colburn out of Oklahoma is a David Koresh/Timothy McVeigh with a suit and title. Must be watched closely. We need the remaing few decent Republican's that are seeing the party become the KKK to stand up for reason. They know they're lying about this issue - and it's not even about health care that these frauds from the local retirement home are "supposedly" angry about - it's that Bush/Cheny/McCain/Palin screwed up so badly - that it reflects on them - in character and morale, that the rest of us laugh comically (maybe we should pull back, but the make it so easy!).
Posted by Jim Backus on Thu 13 Aug 2009 at 07:29 PM
Yes, it is a debate, battle, to-and-fro - whatever you choose to call it - between groups of differing opinion. The NYT, LAT et al picked their champion long ago. "Reporters" - writers or photographers - carry their BHO banner with them when they enter these town hall meetings. They will crap all over the "AstroTurf", conservatives or any BHO/Democrat opponent the next day in print. Why should they be treated any different than any other union thug or party apparatchik? Does Damon Winter really believe he should be treated as a neutral, simple observer and recorder of events? What a ridiculous interview. If Alexandra Fenwick is any evidence, CJR remains a home for useless individuals playing "journalist".
Posted by queeno_the_howler_monkey on Thu 13 Aug 2009 at 10:29 PM
Can you attack links to the photos or post the photos? This is a very interesting interview.
Posted by Newshound on Fri 14 Aug 2009 at 08:23 AM
Sorry, I do not believe that the entire professional press corps can't determine the identities of these health-care protesters. How about interviewing them and asking? If that doesn't work, how about taking down a license plate number, checking with the DMV and running some searches on the name/s that comes up? I worked in print journalism for 24 years. These are elementary investigative techniques. Clearly, the interviewee works with some very lazy reporters. Beyond that, most protests are organized. Both on the left and the right. This is no surprise. Again, get out in the field. That's where the answers are.
Posted by ed telka on Fri 14 Aug 2009 at 12:28 PM
I was struck by his pronouncement that he's not interested in what's on the signs; that it's not his job to get their message out. Well, I'm interested in what's on the signs, and why isn't that part of the story?
Newspapers pump out every word the government puts out, uncritically, usually. Why is what people want to tell their government, and each other, not a 'story'? If it isn't, then all we learn is that people are angry, and the discussion disintegrates to whether the government can manage to appease or shut them up. It's all about the government, and not about the people. A picture that shows someone is angry or frustrated doesn't touch on exactly why.
Newspapers are going under because people can't get relevant information from them. They convey the official message, unqualified by just which corporation bought what from which government hack. They're speaking for the gov., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporations.
Why can't the newspaper facilitate people talking to each other?
Posted by Alice de Tocqueville on Sun 16 Aug 2009 at 08:46 PM