Newspaper Dumps Photographers, Wants Video

[Rienzphotoz]

Re: Noooooooo....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Borrowing the words of an other person who commented on this article: "Depressing! Is this the future of photojournalism?"

 

[PilotJoe]

I do think it sucks. But i haven't gotten a newspaper in who knows how long. So im sure the papers are losing money like crazy. And personally i would rather read good articles that see good pictures about badly written articles.

 

[jointdoc]

Another opinion:

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/do-newspapers-need-photographers/

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Newspapers are dying out and closing. Print editions are disappearing. Photographers and reporters alike are losing their jobs. This has been happening to big newspapers quite regularly for the past several years.

When you have millions of people walking around with camera phones that are willing to upload photos and videos to newspapers and TV stations for free, paid photographers are going to be let go.

 

[emag]

Can't remember the last time I bought a newspaper. I get my news (including local) on a tablet, phone or computer. I don't see newspapers being much more than a niche in a short time, not much of a future for Jimmy Olsen. Collateral damage in a changing world.

 

[distant.star]

.
Loss of the photo staff is one more layer of erosion of professionalism in the primary news gathering foundation.

At 1:23 AM of a recent morning, I got a "Breaking News Alert" from a local community-based "newspaper" (Web-based). The headline:

Black and White Kitten Found on Cooper Ave.

A small, fuzzy image accompanied this -- apparently meant to show a black & white kitten. The full and complete story?

"A reader sent in this photo. The kitten is currently in the care of a neighbor. Can you help find its owners?"

Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) says a huge percentage of genuine news is still gathered/generated by what they call "legacy news organizations," print newspapers, wire services, etc. That's where real, trained journalists dig out real news stories. That stuff then gets filtered down to broadcasters, aggregators, social media sites, etc., and the people reading them think they're not reading a newspaper.

CJR says, "...the fact that the overwhelming amount of actual new information originates from desiccated newspaper newsrooms is decidedly not good news for anyone."

Maybe that guy from Digital Rev can train journalists to do compelling video -- and won't we all be entertained watching what passes for news on our computer screens!

So...

No use permitting
some prophet of doom
To wipe every smile away.
Come hear the music play.
Life is a Cabaret, old chum,
Come to the Cabaret!

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi guys,
Sympathy for the guys loosing jobs in this issue, I was in the manufacturing industry 14 years as a toolmaker, watching manufacturing disappear from the UK causing my redundancy, so been where they are, it hurts..
As for news papers circling the drain, I think they have only their policies, political preferences and reporters to blame, last time I bought a paper was the day before a reporter called a friend to ask about an issue involving some of her bosses wildfowl, she, not knowing anything about said event gave the no comment response so the journalist made a story up and labeled it a quote, my friend nearly lost her job over this! Even after being notified of this situation there was no appolgy or retraction of this report!
I am certain that this paper is not alone, especially after recent revelations regarding press antics.
We don't need reporting like this, and the sooner papers willing to do this finish gurgling and die the better.
Graham.

 

[mrzero]

My sympathies are with the laid-off photogs, but I am quite certain that they were preparing for this. The news industry, both print and television, has been on a steady decline towards this for DECADES. Everyone who works in the industry knows this.

Look at the pics from the meeting. http://petapixel.com/2013/06/03/chicago-sun-times-photographers-react-and-respond-to-being-laid-off/#more-113195 This is a major newspaper in the third-largest city in the USA. (I do believe that this layoff has affected all the photogs at the other suburban papers owned by the Sun Times, as well.) It seems pretty clear that they have been using stringers (freelancers) for a while now. There will be no shortage of stringers arriving at breaking news, just as there was before. The paper will probably be hiring back its laid-off staffers on a freelance basis to do feature/editorial work as-needed.

I think the bit about finding video more important than stills is some sort of corporate BS, though. TV news organizations have been doing the same thing, cutting staff photogs (videographers) in favor of stringer video at breaking news and hiring freelancers on a daily basis. In the smaller markets, they cut staff photogs and hand the gear over to new reporters, turning them into "one man bands." So, although there isn't any shortage of news videographers, either, there definitely isn't a huge draw for them into the world of newspapers. If they are getting video, I expect they'll be getting it from whichever TV news department they've partnered up with in Chicago (I read the Trib and watch WGN, so I don't know who that is.)

I also don't know where this stuff about iphones has come from. I know somebody reported on a comment from a laid-off staffer that he expected the Sun Times to go with more reporter-generated stills, and I think that is definitely true. But I don't know why that automatically translates into iphones. More likely, they'll hand over something like a 60D plus superzoom and show them how to work it in scene/green box modes. The technical barriers to photography are falling down by the wayside. Certainly, reporter-generated images are going to lack the emotion and ingenuity of a true photojournalist. But it won't be gloom and doom, either. It isn't like the reporters are going to be developing Tri-X in their bathtubs.

The Sun-Times is going to continue to lose money and circle the drain. This is just going to add to it. But it is the same thing that has been happening for many, many years. I hope that the now-self-employed former-Sun-Times staff photographers continue to go out there and generate amazing quality images, and I'm sure they will. I also hope that they sell them to the highest bidder, and let the Sun-Times pay to get them.

 

[Zv]

If a reporter turned up to my door for an interview with an iPhone I'd think that he was not taking me seriously and was mocking me.

Can you imagine the reaction some serious political figure or a scientist or whatever would have when the reporter whips out his phone or whatever and snaps a quickie? Or how about fashion? Yeah? How you gonna cover that? Right! Good luck without a decent flash too.

So these journalist are gonna edit their own video? When will they have time for that?

The still image is what captures my attention in any article, online or print.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

If newspapers is on a steady decline, it's because they haven't adapted to the digital era (read: Internet, greater competition, cameras everywhere, etc), and have allowed content quality to slip.

People still want to read news, so quality profitable newspapers would be back, one way or another.

 

[thepancakeman]

If a reporter turned up to my door for an interview with an iPhone I'd think that he was not taking me seriously and was mocking me.

Can you imagine the reaction some serious political figure or a scientist or whatever would have when the reporter whips out his phone or whatever and snaps a quickie?

Obviously you haven't seen Ironman 3 yet.

Yes, the quality of so much continues to deteriorate, from mp3s to iphone photos. And even online news sites seem more and more intent on pushing some iphone video instead of actually writing a news article. Personally, I hate having to get my news from vide. Rarely am I looking for an online crappy video--I want an article and a relevant photo. But I guess I'm part of a dying breed... :'(

 

[distant.star]

I also don't know where this stuff about iphones has come from. I know somebody reported on a comment from a laid-off staffer that he expected the Sun Times to go with more reporter-generated stills, and I think that is definitely true. But I don't know why that automatically translates into iphones. More likely, they'll hand over something like a 60D plus superzoom and show them how to work it in scene/green box modes.

This is where it comes from:

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/214954/sun-times-will-train-reporters-on-iphone-photography-basics/

They will hardly waste time and money handing reporters DSLR cameras and hoping for the best. The iphone image is immediate and adequate for most delivery systems now available. Fallbacks are stock, file photos, stringers and the general public -- all at least as good as a reporter with a smart phone camera.

 

[distant.star]

As for news papers circling the drain, I think they have only their policies, political preferences and reporters to blame, last time I bought a paper was the day before a reporter called a friend to ask about an issue involving some of her bosses wildfowl, she, not knowing anything about said event gave the no comment response so the journalist made a story up and labeled it a quote, my friend nearly lost her job over this! Even after being notified of this situation there was no appolgy or retraction of this report!
I am certain that this paper is not alone, especially after recent revelations regarding press antics.
We don't need reporting like this, and the sooner papers willing to do this finish gurgling and die the better.
Graham.

I can't be sure what you're saying given the run-on sentences, lack of punctuation, capitalization, etc. It appears however, you claim a newspaper reporter called your friend, asked her a question and she refused to answer. Then, you appear to say, the reporter made up a response from whole cloth and printed it as a direct quote by your friend.

If that is what you are saying, I find it lacking credibility. I have to presume your friend told you this is what happened -- that you were not privy to the actual encounter between your friend and the reporter.

My experience suggests it is far more likely your friend said pretty much what the reporter claimed, and that when it became a problem for your friend, she wanted to deny she said anything -- to save her job?

Professional journalists are thoroughly trained in quoting sources and the appropriate ethics involved. If they violate the ethics, they do not simply risk losing their job -- they risk losing their whole career. One mistake like that and they find themselves on the lowest rung of the food service employment ladder. (No disrespect intended to the fine people working in food service.)

So, if you're going to pit your hearsay against a professional reporter, the reporter wins in my court of judgement.

 

[Brymills]

The ever increasing amount of video means I often find I can't skim read the news sites during my lunch break at work - as I can't play video, and frankly don't want to. My other fear is that those one off iconic photos that endure for decades will no longer be captured. That more than anything else will be the biggest loss by this.

 

[AmbientLight]

Please correct me, if I am wrong.

My assumption is that generally news consumption moves from old-fashioned paper to internet access, which is accompanied by a move to replace stills, which would fit print media by videos, which are supposed to be good enough for the internet. Surprisingly the movie quality on news websites is usually astonishingly bad. My expectation is that the measurement for success at news sites is nowadays how long a consumer actually stays on the site, instead of the quality of reporting and associated images. If this is indeed the case, then it should be rather clear, why excellently written short articles plus professional photos telling/supporting the story are a thing of the past, because these would allow the consumer to leave the internet site rather quickly. Add to this the difference in production costs and you've got a rather depressing picture of where we are heading in this area.

What has been mentioned in this thread remarkably often is the imposition of a marked political bias in news media, which pretty much alienates me to a lot of information spread by corporations selling news or even worse by government-owned media. The more we know, the more critical we must become towards what is presented as news, which in my humble opinion is at least in part a reason, why this kind of business is on its way to extinction.

 

[Valvebounce]

As for news papers circling the drain, I think they have only their policies, political preferences and reporters to blame, last time I bought a paper was the day before a reporter called a friend to ask about an issue involving some of her bosses wildfowl, she, not knowing anything about said event gave the no comment response so the journalist made a story up and labeled it a quote, my friend nearly lost her job over this! Even after being notified of this situation there was no appolgy or retraction of this report!
I am certain that this paper is not alone, especially after recent revelations regarding press antics.
We don't need reporting like this, and the sooner papers willing to do this finish gurgling and die the better.
Graham.

I can't be sure what you're saying given the run-on sentences, lack of punctuation, capitalization, etc. It appears however, you claim a newspaper reporter called your friend, asked her a question and she refused to answer. Then, you appear to say, the reporter made up a response from whole cloth and printed it as a direct quote by your friend.

If that is what you are saying, I find it lacking credibility. I have to presume your friend told you this is what happened -- that you were not privy to the actual encounter between your friend and the reporter.

My experience suggests it is far more likely your friend said pretty much what the reporter claimed, and that when it became a problem for your friend, she wanted to deny she said anything -- to save her job?

Professional journalists are thoroughly trained in quoting sources and the appropriate ethics involved. If they violate the ethics, they do not simply risk losing their job -- they risk losing their whole career. One mistake like that and they find themselves on the lowest rung of the food service employment ladder. (No disrespect intended to the fine people working in food service.)

So, if you're going to pit your hearsay against a professional reporter, the reporter wins in my court of judgement.

Hi distant star,
I understand your scepticism due to the sketchy nature of the info provided, there are reasons for that.

First thing, my friend works for famous person, a person who insists on privacy.
She has a non disclosure clause.
She also spends a good deal of her time fending off people who are trying to trick their way to see this person with claims that they have an appointment etc.

Second thing, there was a witness to what she said in the office.

Third thing, I was the person that witnessed the emotions at the instant she saw the report, you just can not fake what I saw.

Fourth thing, due to the private nature of her employer she was unable to file formal complaints against the reporter as this too could have cost her job.

Last thing, it is a local rag and our locality is rife with people all belonging to the dodgy handshake brigade so perusing the matter would have been doomed from the outset.

Cheers Graham.

 

[drummstikk]

Personally, I hate having to get my news from vide. Rarely am I looking for an online crappy video--I want an article and a relevant photo. But I guess I'm part of a dying breed... :'(

If it's a dying breed then I'm dying with you. On any news site, I look for the little video camera icon and AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE. Same goes for online how-to's. I can get far more useful info in 45 seconds of reading than I can get from several minutes of rambling, stammering shaky video from an amateur videographer who happens to know how to replace the string in a Troy-Bilt weed eater.

One thing I will concede, though, (based only on my personal observation) is that there seem to be a lot more writers/reporters who are at least creditable photographers than there are photographers who are good writers. Very, VERY few writers are good creative photographers but even that small number seems to exceed by quite a bit the number of photographers who "switch hit." In the contracting market that is print journalism, it is inevitable that newspapers will attempt, no matter how ill-advisedly, to divest of specialists, and photographers, from those just coming into college age to older photographers considering future re-training, need to bear this market force in mind.

 

[Zv]

If a reporter turned up to my door for an interview with an iPhone I'd think that he was not taking me seriously and was mocking me.

Can you imagine the reaction some serious political figure or a scientist or whatever would have when the reporter whips out his phone or whatever and snaps a quickie?

Obviously you haven't seen Ironman 3 yet.

Yes, the quality of so much continues to deteriorate, from mp3s to iphone photos. And even online news sites seem more and more intent on pushing some iphone video instead of actually writing a news article. Personally, I hate having to get my news from vide. Rarely am I looking for an online crappy video--I want an article and a relevant photo. But I guess I'm part of a dying breed... :'(

OK no spoilers please I haven't seen it yet!

But seriously, I still want to "read" news and not watch it. Sometimes it's not practicle to watch a video - public transport (without headphones), libraries, offices etc. if I see news online and it's video I usually avoid it. Mostly because it's always some kind of rubbish news like a dancing dog or something. Sure I guess video is best for that kinda thing!

 

[distant.star]

One thing I will concede, though, (based only on my personal observation) is that there seem to be a lot more writers/reporters who are at least creditable photographers than there are photographers who are good writers. Very, VERY few writers are good creative photographers but even that small number seems to exceed by quite a bit the number of photographers who "switch hit."

For what it's worth, my experience confirms your observation. When I was in that business I was always a solid functional photographer -- you won't get anything fancy or creative or dramatic. I could get a decent picture to go with the story. I was outstanding on the writing side.

On the other hand, I never saw a photographer who could write anything outside of a good expense report. And that's taking nothing away from the photographers -- they do amazing work and I'd love to be able to do what they do. I think they are universally undervalued and unappreciated. I guess that's why it's not surprising to see them losing jobs nowadays.

 

[drummstikk]

On the other hand, I never saw a photographer who could write anything outside of a good expense report.

I would be pleased to share with you the 70-odd columns I wrote over four or five years while a staff photographer at a newspaper in the 90's to see if I can perhaps qualify as your first "photographer who could write anything outside of a good expense report."

But overall, it was always a source of embarrassment for me that my fellow photographers seemed barely able to provide caption material for their images that didn't deserve laughter or derision due to atrocious spelling or diction, or which was suspect in its accuracy. If there were anywhere near as many photographers who could write as there are writers who can (just barely) photograph, maybe the layoffs we're seeing now would not be so one-sided.