Newspaper lays off its photography department

[dwh]

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

I can see it now...

"Make it look amateur. Realism, that's what sells. Think 'Reality TV'. Think 'Blair Witch'. For god's sakes, whatever you do, DON'T make it look professional! People won't believe it! They'll think it's a hoax!"

 

[DaveInDenver]

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.

This is interesting to me because for the most recent few centuries libraries saw increased accessibility by we riffraff. At one time books themselves were beyond rare, over time coming from a single tome in a monastery to literally a link to the world's knowledge being just a miles away. Libraries still have a purpose, particularly as long as we hold onto traditional copyright and intellectual property paradigms that prevent dissemination into the public domain. But by-and-large the Internet has the collected knowledge available openly and there is no doubt going forward new understanding will show up online rather than stored on dusty shelves and on newsprint. The concept of a library still sticks in people's minds as a building with books. You can learn everything a graduate of MIT would learn, just without reception of the degree, for free. Imagine if Galileo or Newton or Einstein had MOOC like edX, Coursera, MIT Online in their day.

Access to primary sources of news and knowledge has never in the history of humankind been so easily achieved. It's this openness that worries the 1% you deride, thus we get SOPA, CISPA, PIPA, etc. The loss of the 'Some are more equal' status would continue to level the playing field. Who would have the most to lose with a truly free and open Internet? Those who would prefer some things never see the light of day or that some voices never have a soapbox. No, of course, controlling the flow of information through accepted channels is just for our protection, lest we be subjected to unapproved falsehoods. I understand the down side of people losing their economic livelihood, it's unfortunate. Thing is I see anything that eliminates barriers to access as positive, in this case removal of censorship (regardless if it's nefarious or honest editing) to news.

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!

How often are The Onion or The Daily Currant stories linked on Facebook or Twitter as actual news? A lot it seems to me. To understand satire requires a fair amount of critical thought and basic state of information on matters. It's not hard to sniff it out when you're willing to read once in a while and let a few brain cells rub shoulders by taking a break from the idiot box.

 

[dwh]

This is interesting to me because ...[snip]
...taking a break from the idiot box.

Hear, hear!

 

[haven]

An article on DPreview.com points out that the new publisher of the Sun-Times canned the photo department at Long Island's Newsday newspaper in 2008. And CNN did the same in 2011, turning instead to cell phone-equipped volunteer "iReporters."

The DPReview article's author is a consultant who trains newspapers to use cell phone photos provided by eyewitness observers.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/06/07/former-sun-times-editor-speaks-out

 

[Every Miles A Memory]

Everyone wants their 10 seconds of fame and most are happy to say "Look, I got one of my cellphone shots on the news tonight!"

So many people ask for use of our photos and when we ask "What do you pay?" most wont even reply back or just simply say "Oh sorry, we'll just find someone else who is willing to give them to us for free."

So many say "Well you'll get lots of Exposure from us using your images!" I call bull****.

One of the reasons I still subscribe to the print edition of OJ is because I know they still pay their photographers who submit their images to the magazine. That for me is enough to support them. When they ask for use of images and expect it for free because of exposure, I'll cancel my subscription.

Two quotes come to mind when I think of this and just about everything else I do in life -

'Cheap Work Ain't Good, and Good Work Ain't Cheap!'

And my favorite quote to tell photographers that tell me they got one of their images in a magazine, yet didn't get paid

'Don't work for free under the guise of good exposure, it's bad exposure'

 

[Clark White]

Quote from John White about using iReporters in place of professional photo journalists that made me smile: "You can't take someone who fills prescription bottles and have them do your heart surgery."

Clark

 

[expedition4x4]

Is this surprising, when everyone with a 300 dollar camera thinks themselves a professional photographer for their friends wedding?
News organizations are leveraging the largest work for free workforce since 1865

 

[haven]

Now a Tumblr blog has appeared that compares the crowd-sourced photos posted on the Sun-Times web site to photos taken by pro photos working at the cross town rival, Chicago Tribune.

http://suntimesdarktimes.tumblr.com/