This picture shows what was apparently a big moment in basketball history.  The chap in yellow is Lebron James and he is just setting a new point-scoring record for the NBA.  The accompanying article in The Daily Telegraph is entitled: “Proof sport is now lived through the lens”.  The text goes on to draw attention to the sea of mobile phones behind the players and then the seemingly buddha-like focus of the spectator down at the bottom right (who is Phil Knight, one of the founders of the firm Nike).  The article’s theme is the contrast between him and the crowd and, almost inevitably, the suggestion that Knight is mindfully  in the moment while the rest of the spectators are not. 

I’m not sure I would go along with that (and to be fair to the journalist the article is more of a discussion than an accusation).   The idea behind mindfulness is awareness of the present moment.  To suggest that watching a game as Knight is doing is more mindful than all the iphoners therefore begs the question because it assumes what it sets out to prove – that witnessing without a phone is more mindful than witnessing with one.*  Yet taking stills or videos of an event could be perfectly mindful so long as the person snapping away is aware of what they are doing.  Similarly, Phil Knight could have half a mind on what he is going to have for his tea for all we know.

So, firstly, the photo doesn’t “prove” anything – and no photo ever does.  And secondly, if you go to see Lebron James score a record point and you say to yourself that you are going to capture it with your phone and you set everything up to do that and you come away with a nice shot – how is that not mindful in its own right?

*I  have a bee in my bonnet about this expression which is virtually never used correctly these days.  To “beg the question” does NOT mean to invite the question.  It means to make a circular argument. The example given in good old Fowler’s Modern English Usage under the wonderful heading “Petitio Principii” is: ‘Capital punishment is necessary because without it murders would increase’. Take that.