Newspaper lays off its photography department

[haven]

Reportedly, the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper has laid off its entire photography department. In the department's place, the newspaper will use the services of freelance photographers.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-76108005/

What's next, crowd-sourcing the editorial department? I understand that newspapers and magazines are under financial pressure, losing subscribers and advertisers to digital alternatives. But this seems a drastic step.

 

[Rallyroo]

Photojournalists are getting replaced by people who submit photos/videos from cell phones. I guess that's a growing trend.

 

[evilfij]

Anyone with a digital camera can be a photographer now-perhaps that is overstating it, but the costs are much lower than in the past and the skills needed have diminished with high quality digital cameras. You need someone to separate the wheat from the chaff, but it is much more cost effective to hire free lancers and someone to sort it out. My SO is a free lance journalist on the side so she knows the industry well enough and the number of staff journalist positions continues to dwindle. Pictures for her articles are almost always done by freelancers or, even worse, are stock photos. Basically photography and journalism have been and are switching to the freelance model as much as is possible due to economic issues and the proliferation of competent freelancers.

 

[jeffryscott]

As a former newspaper photographer this is so sad to see, and part of a scary trend. My former paper had about 15 photographers at one point, now has maybe five.

Reader submitted photos, and iReports or whatever CNN calls them are not news. They may be part of a news story, but by themselves they are not news. Steps like the Sun Times' hasten the death of newspapers, the continuation of a self-fulfilling prophecy I've seen since USA Today debuted in the 1980s.

I know the news industry has many critics, some of it is deserved, and some of it is just vitriol, but in 25 years in the business I saw few examples of blatant bias. I think that is changing as corporate ownership, FOX news and others, combined with dwindling newsrooms and budgets become the standard bearers.

 

[1911]

In many industries (including the one I work in) it just makes more economic sense to hire contractors than permanent employees. For one thing, you don't have to provide expensive office space, utilities, parking, etc. From the contractor's point of view, it allows you to work from home, be self-employed, and work for as many different clients as you want/can. Unlike (most) employment, if you do more work you actually make more money. I'm sorry for those that lost jobs, but they need to re-invent themselves as contractors/consultants and in many cases they will be better off than they were as employees.

 

[dwh]

I know the news industry has many critics, some of it is deserved, and some of it is just vitriol, but in 25 years in the business I saw few examples of blatant bias. I think that is changing as corporate ownership, FOX news and others, combined with dwindling newsrooms and budgets become the standard bearers.

Perhaps hearkening a return to the days of yellow journalism as accepted practice?

I've been noticing how very many recent news stories contain this sort of phrase, "speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release details". I grabbed that quote from this story:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-shot-fbi-spoken-bombing-suspect-19239448#.UairGfpQixM

But this search:

http://www.google.com/search?client...34,d.cGE&fp=1269c430e2367750&biw=1333&bih=620

provides many such examples.



From that page on yellow journalism:

"Campbell (2001) defines yellow press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page headlines covering a variety of topics, such as sports and scandal, using bold layouts (with large illustrations and perhaps color), heavy reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-promotion." [emphasis added]

 

[DaveInDenver]

On the spot people with cell phones uploading to social media are more journalists than anyone, just recording what they see. If there is time to assign a photographer and reporter it's not news anymore but documentation. That things happen fast, so along with the financial advantages of using contractors, this makes this inevitable. Barely an evening newcast goes by that does not contain 'amateur' footage of something, so they know they've lost a handle on the content and are trying to stay relevant economically.

But most people already have lost trust in their integrity. This is an inevitable step in the elimination of centralized information. Just as libraries are looked as anachronistic, so too are 'traditional' media. I suppose if a person does not trust themselves to be able to filter the information flow they will long for editors to tell them what to think, but for most people I think having access to unfettered data is preferred over being lectured by someone who possesses superficial traits but no real expertise on anything upon which they report.

 

[JIMBO]

:sombrero: Objectively, it is very sad--progress hurts especially if your working, or starting out in any industry--

I can't tell you how happy/sad I am, being retired for 20 years and watching my sons/daughters fighting these "TRENDS"-

peace

JIMBO

 

[dwh]

I suppose if a person does not trust themselves to be able to filter the information flow they will long for editors to tell them what to think, but for most people I think having access to unfettered data is preferred over being lectured by someone who possesses superficial traits but no real expertise on anything upon which they report.

I would have taken the opposite position - that *most* people prefer being told what to think rather than having to actually think for themselves.

But of course, they'd never admit that...if they even thought about it...which I doubt. Critical thinking takes work. Thoughtlessness is the path of least resistance.

 

[kingg5]

sounds like spiderman might get his job back

 

[DaveInDenver]

I would have taken the opposite position - that *most* people prefer being told what to think rather than having to actually think for themselves.

But of course, they'd never admit that...if they even thought about it...which I doubt. Critical thinking takes work. Thoughtlessness is the path of least resistance.

Yeah, you're right of course. Even in my relatively young 40-something years I've seen the shift from rhetorical and critical thinking to American Idol. I stopped being surprised by shells of humanity going through life on cruise control, oblivious to the world around them.

 

[Lost Canadian]

On the spot people with cell phones uploading to social media are more journalists than anyone, just recording what they see. If there is time to assign a photographer and reporter it's not news anymore but documentation. That things happen fast, so along with the financial advantages of using contractors, this makes this inevitable. Barely an evening newcast goes by that does not contain 'amateur' footage of something, so they know they've lost a handle on the content and are trying to stay relevant economically.

But most people already have lost trust in their integrity. This is an inevitable step in the elimination of centralized information. Just as libraries are looked as anachronistic, so too are 'traditional' media. I suppose if a person does not trust themselves to be able to filter the information flow they will long for editors to tell them what to think, but for most people I think having access to unfettered data is preferred over being lectured by someone who possesses superficial traits but no real expertise on anything upon which they report.

All of this.^. The only problem I have is that there's almost always more to a story than what appears on the surface. A snapshot rarely provides the reader with context or understanding. For instance a video of a police officer using force against an unarmed individual may appear extreme and unessasary at a glance, but provide context, like the individual was a known individual who had commited a violent heinous crime, and the apparent overzealous nature of the officers actions suddenly don't appear to be extreme.

That has always been the role of a good photojournalist, to tell the whole story with images. Unfortunately, in our agenda driven society where selfish ambitions trump righteous intent, the whole notion of honest journalism has been bastardized to the extent that the only truth to be had is the one we can uncover ourselves.

It's a bit of a double edged sword. Sometimes there's more to a story than what appears on the surface and it's incumbent upon the viewer to dig deeper to find truth, however for those too busy, uninterested, or without the means, the whole truth may ultimately elude them and that is where the dangerous path of assumption lay waiting.

 

[haven]

Now it appears that all Sun-Times reporters are expected to attend mandatory cell phone photography classes
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/02...ects-reporters-to-become-mobile-photographers

 

[keezer37]

I would have taken the opposite position - that *most* people prefer being told what to think rather than having to actually think for themselves.

But of course, they'd never admit that...if they even thought about it...which I doubt. Critical thinking takes work. Thoughtlessness is the path of least resistance.

Comments like this are recognized by ACE for credit and could lead to a degree in... the liberal arts. :Wow1:
Seriously though, there are plenty of books on the market about developing critical thinking skills. It's no magic potion, just how much effort one is willing to put into digging down and finding the truth. Of course at some point we have to push the I believe button but I totally agree with your first statement which is particularly sad in the age of Google. Imagine if they all had to go to the library. Again, :Wow1:
Case in point: I overheard some folks at work a few months back parroting a story they heard about how soldiers in Afghanistan were not getting breakfast or some such. A quick internet search revealed the stories and the truth. But they can't or won't do such a thing. Why? It fit in with their model of how the world works. This is where challenging your beliefs/critical thinking comes in. Forcing yourself to consider the other's viewpoint and running it to ground rather than dismissing it out of hand.

All of this.^. The only problem I have is that there's almost always more to a story than what appears on the surface. A snapshot rarely provides the reader with context or understanding. For instance a video of a police officer using force against an unarmed individual may appear extreme and unessasary at a glance, but provide context, like the individual was a known individual who had commited a violent heinous crime, and the apparent overzealous nature of the officers actions suddenly don't appear to be extreme.

I recall a story some years back about a man being shot multiple times in a doorway in New York City by police officers and how it was excessive. What is the perception of the general public? That when a person is shot once they fall down dead? Yeah, if you live inside your TV.

 

[dwh]

Comments like this are recognized by ACE for credit and could lead to a degree in... the liberal arts. :Wow1:

I'll have to take your word for it since I've never had the patience for academia, and they don't hand out degrees to those who choose their own curriculum, do their own studies and grade their own homework. If they did, I'd probably have a few degrees by now. But if someone wanted to hand me a liberal arts degree, hell I'd take it...even if it did say, "honorary".

Seriously though, there are plenty of books on the market about developing critical thinking skills. It's no magic potion, just how much effort one is willing to put into digging down and finding the truth. Of course at some point we have to push the I believe button but I totally agree with your first statement which is particularly sad in the age
of Google. Imagine if they all had to go to the library. Again, :Wow1:

They won't have to worry about that much longer. The Los Angeles Public Library keeps cutting staff and hours. Won't be long now till they'll just put the books on Craig's List and then sell off the facilities to some corporation to collect rents on. Libraries are a luxury for the commoners, and commoners aren't allowed luxuries in the feudalistic austerity world of the 21st Century.

Latest game score is that the 1% now own 39% of all the wealth - of the WORLD.

http://www.google.com/search?client...rceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

And of course, they control all the rest of it.

Case in point: I overheard some folks at work a few months back parroting a story they heard about how soldiers in Afghanistan were not getting breakfast or some such. A quick internet search revealed the stories and the truth. But they can't or won't do such a thing. Why? It fit in with their model of how the world works. This is where challenging your beliefs/critical thinking comes in. Forcing yourself to consider the other's viewpoint and running it to ground rather than dismissing it out of hand.

Yea. The other day my son was telling me about how a friend of his was telling him how he saw this documentary, and it turns out that mermaids are actually real! My son said he whipped out his smartphone and in 10 seconds of searching knew the truth about the "mockumentary". Then he showed it to his friend - who was doubtful. The guy couldn't decide whether to believe the mockumentary or the endless news stories saying it was a hoax. He couldn't decide!

I recall a story some years back about a man being shot multiple times in a doorway in New York City by police officers and how it was excessive. What is the perception of the general public? That when a person is shot once they fall down dead? Yeah, if you live inside your TV.

Another example: The phrase "jet fuel" makes people think of extreme heat. They seem to picture it as though it were nitro-glycerine or something. Try telling them it's just kerosene and doesn't burn hot enough to have melted the giant steel support beams of the World Trade Center.

It's fun because you never know if they'll say, "Yea" (mouth moving below but a blank stare above) or if they'll ask if you prefer Pringles or Lays potato chips. Seems like every single day I'm amazed and bemused by the utterly off-the-wall stuff that comes out of people's mouths when they get stuck in a position where they have to try and think. It's kind of like watching a slow-motion train derailment.