@dmortega I personally do not have the highest opinion of "mass media" in general...news is not necessarily news and often times seems abused/controlled/biased and even pure propaganda...so from my stand point firing people just accentuates the dumbing down of what information we are spoon-fed to believe and quality photo journalism will be replaced with a more Jerry Springer "reality" ...
It doesn't surprise me a lot, but I think its really a shame... I mean, could I as an amateur hobby photographer go out and get pix of good quality for them? Sure. But if that is all they ever use... we will lose those amazing shots that tell the story like nothing else can. And those shots? Those come from the pros who can dedicate a lot more time and talent than people like me.
It was bound to happen eventually. But it is very saddening. Camera phones are good enough, but won't get the kind of shots that a pro can achieve that make you really think.
@loztsoul --- I totally agree. I makes me crazy when I change the local channels and see the three main news stations giving the same story, the same. I do think though there will be people who will get compelling shots because they are in the right place at the right time. Are those any less worthy? Probably not. It certainly opens up the doors pretty wide for anyone who wants to enter, doesn't it?
It reminds me of the internet and how it has changed the way we gather information. Sources come in many flavors. I can see why they could be doing this. I've seen it more and more closer to home. People submit photos or video which gets shown on the website or on tv.
I've been reading David duChamin's eBook 'Vision is Better' ( http://craftandvision.com/books/vision-is-better/). He is a firm believer that being a 'professional' (one who gets paid for their photographs) does not make them a better photographer than an 'amateur' (one who does not get paid). I believe that also.
I don't see this going into other areas as easily. People are tweeting, posting, uploading, and sharing information and it needs to be up to the minute information. There are still so many other areas where the average person won't have the skills to get the needed photographs like wildlife photography, for example.
Hmm. I think there's a difference between Breaking News Photography and Feature Photography...I can see why they'd take this approach for Breaking News, but I don't think they'd go this route for Feature. Or, at least, I don't think they SHOULD go this route for Feature. :)
There will definitely be a swing the other way in, say, 20 years' time, when they realise what boobs they've been in firing the people who actually know how to capture/report a story.
@beautifulthing i agree. the photographs you seen in daily news are mostly just point and click scoops which can easily be superseded by an amateur in the right place at the right time.
Given the volume of news that CNN commits itself to pumping out every day, this is probably a wise business move for them as it ensures a good influx of shots and increases interaction with readers (who will want to see their shot make the press).
Unless more mass media outlets adopted this, the effect will probably not be too significant. From what little i know of the industry (as advised by friends who work within it), prestige and reputation are considerations for news organisations, and not having professional photographers would surely diminish that to a certain extent. Maybe that will deter this phenomenon from becoming more widespread.
Having said all that, i can also imagine this being a good platform to raise the profile of budding amateurs who take their photography seriously. double edged sword?
I'm veteran journalist, so I'm not just talking out of my behind when I say there's a bigger philosophical question at hand here of what "news" is, and what the natural progression of it is. In the past there were determined sets of writers and photographers - journalists - charged with the task of capturing, expressing, and distributing a record of important events. It was done this way because distance was a problem. Information traveled slowly, was difficult to verify, and sometimes difficult even for the journalist to access.
Now the same information is available *instantly* that not even fifty years ago might have taken a week or more to research, compile, and distribute to the public. There isn't a lot of call for trained journalists when average citizens can get information directly from the source, can usually view events worldwide as they are happening, and make their own judgement calls about what they see and hear.
This shift has a lot to do with why traditional journalism has been replaced by perpetual commentary. But that's a whole 'nother issue on which I'm not so reserved and so should stop here. :o)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
It reminds me of the internet and how it has changed the way we gather information. Sources come in many flavors. I can see why they could be doing this. I've seen it more and more closer to home. People submit photos or video which gets shown on the website or on tv.
I don't see this going into other areas as easily. People are tweeting, posting, uploading, and sharing information and it needs to be up to the minute information. There are still so many other areas where the average person won't have the skills to get the needed photographs like wildlife photography, for example.
This is why there's no journalism anymore. Anyone else watch 60 minutes back in the 80's when they had real stories? Same thing.
Capturing one moment isn't the same as capturing the feel.
Given the volume of news that CNN commits itself to pumping out every day, this is probably a wise business move for them as it ensures a good influx of shots and increases interaction with readers (who will want to see their shot make the press).
Unless more mass media outlets adopted this, the effect will probably not be too significant. From what little i know of the industry (as advised by friends who work within it), prestige and reputation are considerations for news organisations, and not having professional photographers would surely diminish that to a certain extent. Maybe that will deter this phenomenon from becoming more widespread.
Having said all that, i can also imagine this being a good platform to raise the profile of budding amateurs who take their photography seriously. double edged sword?
Now the same information is available *instantly* that not even fifty years ago might have taken a week or more to research, compile, and distribute to the public. There isn't a lot of call for trained journalists when average citizens can get information directly from the source, can usually view events worldwide as they are happening, and make their own judgement calls about what they see and hear.
This shift has a lot to do with why traditional journalism has been replaced by perpetual commentary. But that's a whole 'nother issue on which I'm not so reserved and so should stop here. :o)