“The Palisades are among the most dramatic geologic features in the vicinity of New York City, forming a canyon of the Hudson north of George Washington Bridge, as well as providing a vista of the skyline.”
The skyline we see in New York City was created by quarying the stone from the Palisades which have left an amazing presence behind:
“The basalt cliffs are the margin of a diabase sill, formed about 200 million years ago at the close of the Triassic Period by the intrusion of molten magma upward into sandstone. The molten material cooled and solidified before reaching the surface. Water erosion of the softer sandstone left behind the columnar structure of harder rock that exists today. The cliffs are about 300 ft (100 m) thick in sections and originally may have reached to 1,000 ft (300 m).”
My Idea is to show both the geological foundation that created the hudson river which made NYC the central port that led to it becoming the city it is today as well as the actual stones that were quarried from this location to create the monolithic skyline we know as New York City. The sheer vastness of the rock is unfathomable and viewable at scale only from a helicopter (or drone).
I would like to have a view of the rock face and also the view of the horizon of NYC to show what the 200 million year old structure became.
There is literally no other way to have a tracking shot of the stones below to show the entire vast space that was removed and then shift to the skyline that it then became unless you have a crane or a helicopter (or drone). This would be amazing.
I admit it, and not just because it is close to Halloween: I love a good ghost story. A friend told me about a place that her best friend went and was so terrified he would never go again: it’s an abandoned settlement near Cornwall, Connecticut that has been rumored to be one of the most haunted places in America. The mythology is strong enough that there are quite a few articles (this is in the Washington Post)about it online. Books have been written, filmmakers tried to make a documentary, the google photos, predictably, have a lot of empty forest with ‘orbs’ that might or might not be ghosts. The If you want to read up more about the myths of the town, you can click here.
But there is very little evidence that any of the myths are actually true. One of the most detailed websites, The Legend of Dudleytown, helped to explain the legend and also debunked most of the stories about the cursed town and all the madness and chaos that happened there. Yet that did not stop people from traveling to where the site was, despite it being owned by a private entity known as Dark Forest Entry Association, who treat anyone accessing the forest as trespassers and one could get ticketed. Yet that apparently did not deter people from heading there.
There is something really interesting about the persistence of myths, legends, and how secrecy actually helped to perpetrate a story as nonsensical as the Dudleytown hauntings. The facts never did add up, but the association, comprised of families living in the area, who got tired of people going there ghost-hunting, trashing their private land and performing ‘satanic rituals’, is seen by others as trying to hide the truth. To be fair, having the street to Dudleytown named as “Dark Entry Road” probably doesn’t help.
Dudleytown is supposedly here. It could be fun project where a story can be seen as whether the situation of Dudleytown is still the same. Internet sources suggest there are patrols of police and residents who try to deter trespassers, as well as curious ghosthunters and hikers who still want to access the area. It could be fun to fly the drone over the area, and talk to all parties involved in this affair. I just did a quick twitter search and there are still a lot of talk about Dudleytown. I found this, so I am guessing the legend is still alive and well this Halloween, much to the annoyance of the Dark Forest Entry Association.
Most of my project ideas at the moment revolve around Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts. Mayor Bloomberg’s administration completely bungled the execution of its “Built it Back” program, designed to provide homeowners with the funds to rebuild. As the New York Times reported in September:
From the outset, Mr. Bloomberg’s ambition was to forge a new model for disaster recovery, one that would provide help but also make certain that the waste and corruption that occurred in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 would not be repeated in New York. In response, however, his administration and their outside consultants created an application process so rigidly linear that it became nearly unworkable.
Two years after the hurricane, the result of those grand ambitions has been a morass of bureaucracy; 13,000 still-displaced families; and continued blight along the shorelines in Staten Island and the Rockaways. Mayor de Blasio, who managed to buy himself some time after first entering office, is starting to feel the heat. The investigative reporting around these issues has been quite good, but I think they’re missing the aerial view that would tie the facts together and communicate the scale of the challenge in places like this ghost town that are “going back to nature.”
There are lots of different directions to take a project like this one. Here are a few initial thoughts:
- Look at the ghost towns that the Build it Back program has failed to serve.
- Analyze the progress of reconstruction efforts in wealthy versus poor neighborhoods.
- Explore the city’s efforts to fend off the next storm, through flood plain management and other environmental strategies.
I have a weird relationship with the DJI Phantom having only met it through the various user-generated 3D printed hacks that I used to have to plan, build and (frustratingly sort) for Shapeways. There are twenty pages of add-ons, alternative landing gears, auxiliary battery packs and camera mounts on the website. These flying devices have entered the market in an era where personalization and appropriation are becoming the norm. I wonder if maybe there is more of a correlation between this particular piece of technology and the demographic that seeks to push the boundaries of its use than other devices such as phones, video games or other things might fall under the “practical toy” category. Sure there are lots of people using their phones in innovative ways especially in the ‘hacker’ and ‘maker’ communities. There is something slightly more mercenary when it comes to drones though. Whether it is a certain counter-cultural/activist vein that is inherent to the engineering type who tend to spearhead the adoption of these devices or that this product comes during an era where awareness of privacy and curiosity is keenly felt, flying machines have begun to symbolize this era… or at least the era I feel like I’m taking part in. They are as accessible as they are phenomenal and as polarized in their variety as the people who use them.
As for me, I need to think of a project that i want to spend this kind of incredible access (and limited battery power) on. My only ideas thus far have to do with architecture and structure… specifically abandoned buildings (like Bell Labs, I WISH I had been able to go there last year). I grew up in a town just North of the Bronx with a lot of abandoned warehouses that were used by the mob to store the garbage that they controlled in the seventies. Maybe there’s something there. I am very excited about getting good at controlling the vehicle though, I think that’s where my brain is right now… maybe I’ll go on Shapeways and get some gear for it.
These will be more fleshed out by Friday but here are some preliminary thoughts on where drones might add a poignant dimension to a story:
- disappearance: if you fly over a large surface area and can juxtapose and reference the taking away of an object or space of people groups over time.
- tunnels: the tunnels in parks seem to be popular places to walk over to gaze at other atrractions, but not many know their stories inside-out (terrible pun).
- trompe l’oeil: I am curious to see what a whole film would look like if you could shoot footage in the sky and flip everything upside down to see what the world looks like that way (Umkehrbrille did this with his Upside Down Goggles which you got to try on at the New Museum in 2011).
The ethics surrounding drones makes me uncomfortable. I remember after Ben’s intro lecture on the range of drones (from toys to warfare) and the stance that drones shouldn’t be policed and kept from the people, I pulled Fletcher aside during the break asking if this stance didn’t sound a lot like the gun rights activists’ stance in America. I know it may seem tremendously naive and matchless, but it was truly the first familiar argument that came to mind. A week later, I have a somewhat better understanding of the use of drones in the areas of journalism. After a few hours of sifting through the articles posted on Drone Journalism Lab, the capabilities of drones to capture footage from places humans can’t go in nature is incredible. In these cases, it offered more protection than if a person would try and shoot the footage in the same range. This is true of flying a drone over an erupting volcano and a family of giraffes. But in some ways, the heart and soul of journalism has been about the courage and perseverance it takes in digging up stories from people and places. Traditionally, if the story is inaccessible to you, the story can’t get written. And that’s where drones will change journalism as it stands today– it’s either giving access to stories that couldn’t have been told without it, or it’s providing an entirely new way to tell unscaled stories. Even in the short interaction with the stories posted on Drone Journalism Lab, it’s undeniable that drone journalism is real, but just like everything in Man vs. Machine, there’s a valley of resistance and fear that rises about control and regulation which drone hobbyists and journalists will have to tend to carefully.
I strongly feel that drone journalism is not very different from internet journalism.
The ‘journalist’ on the internet, under the aegis of anonymity, speaks freely about what he sees and conveys his opinion in a free manner. That is a moment he detaches himself from the person he is and speaks, rants, and sometimes abuses freely. Similarly, a drone journalist detaches himself from carrying around a camera and lets his extended persona aka ‘the drone’ be his eyes and ears. I feel that it is a mere tool that is available to an individual to utilize. How one exercises that power is completely based on one’s discretion.
The major common factor between the two is the anonymity aspect. As long as one uses the powers responsibly, the risks will be minimized to a great extent. When benefits outweigh the risks, there is an increased possibility of acceptance and widespread adoption.
Drone journalism is very much ‘for real’. It offers everyday people the ability to see events distantly and to convey scale and sequences of events in a way that only individuals / organizations with lots of money could previously. We can see our leaders’ fear of this journalistic peoples’ force in the way they are struggling to regulate our use of drones…
I do wish that it were easier to use drones to document realtime injustice – the battery life and environmental factors that make drones vulnerable are so prohibitive!
One site I might be interested in exploring with a drone is Dead Horse Bay, a continuously-leaking landfill and the home of a former horse-processing facility…
Is drone journalism for real?
I think that my best shoot at answering this question is finding existing scenarios in which drone-driven journalism worked where the alternative would either be too risky or unviable.
Drones were used to photograph 4th of July fireworks in Nashville. While it might be possible to do the same in a helicopter, I believe that the risk of an accident is considerably high (ignition + fuel + human pilot).
Drones are also perfectly able to shoot footage of erupting volcanos from frighteningly close distances, as with the eruption of Mount Yasur on Tanna Island, Vanuatu.
Efforts to both report about and monitor the environment require an extraordinary reach, from deep jungles to arid deserts. Drones have been used to shoot footage of wild animals in a joint effort between CCTV Africa, and AfricanSkyCam. From looking at the footage, drones are more likely to be less disruptive, less detectable than the typical “safari-like” approaches to wild life journalism. They have, I feel, the potentiality to become a way to gain great insight into other species behavior, especially with the possibility of decreasing their sizes even further.
While this is hardly a journalism use case, but one can argue that it falls right in the investigative reporting arena. Despite bureaucratic resistance, drones were used for cases of missing persons. They are an ideal tool for that: they are cheap, fast, and commercially available for both journalists and the families of the missing.
Improving journalism practices.
Drones are a wonderful tool to improve the *content* produced through long-standing journalism practices. For instance, a Santa Barbra high school made a point of using a drone in their student-produced journalist content. To me, it makes the whole process much more engaging for them, I feel.
Reporting heavily censored political activism.
It is hardly a surprise at this stage. Drones were used to cover unrest in the US, Thailand, and Scotland to name but a few.
One summer when I was reporting for Newsday‘s (now defunct) New York City edition I was assigned a story about a power outage at a public housing project in the Far Rockaways; we had heard rumors that the property managers had done little to solve the problem. The city was in the midst of a stifling heat wave, and as the week wore on the project’s residents–particularly the elderly–were struggling to survive. (If you live on food stamps, for example, and the food in your fridge goes bad, you don’t have the resources to replace it.)
When I arrived on the scene with a photographer we faced a gated entrance: There was no way the guards would let us through to do interviews. But we went around the side of the property, found a backdoor gate, and slipped inside with help from an exiting resident. In the plaza areas of the complex residents were gathered on folding chairs, fanning themselves and eager to talk. Night had already started to fall, and I remember how dark and foreboding the powerless buildings seemed, black shadows towering above us.
Security eventually discovered that we were on the property, but we made a run for it and got back to our car.
When I think back on that night, it’s easy to think that footage from a drone would have made the resulting story all the more compelling. Indeed, from a legal standpoint, it might have offered the proof that housing advocates needed in order to compel the absent property managers to take action. But at the same time, capturing the stories of the residents on paper achieved much the same purpose: Their words, on the record, carried weight.
So is drone journalism for real? Yes and no. It’s another tool in the journalist’s toolkit, and in countries with limited media freedoms I imagine that it will continue to be quite a powerful tool. In countries like the U.S., I’m most interested in drones’ ability to help with enterprise reporting, rather than breaking news. How is post-Sandy reconstruction progressing, for example? The government is spending billions on new homes and flooding systems–have those dollars resulted in the homes and solutions that were promised? I’d love to take a drone along the coastline and find out.