in the 1990s newspapers were giving their reporters a p/s camera and having them take a photograph after they did the interview.
that was the "first time" papers started to fire their photography staff.
stories like this are old-news ( 20 year old news ) ..
it is sad when it happens, and when it does you learn who was actually behind the camera
( through the grapevine, like the internet ) ,,,
probably in a few years the pendulum will swing the other way, people will get bored with bad "newshound" video
and they will hire a staff of photographers who have a clue.
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but there's a rather good hashtag on Twitter at the moment: #iphonenewspics Well worth checking out.
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
Maybe they should have considered firing all the reporters and giving the photographers notepads, pens, and audio recorders and said, "go to it!"
Next time I need brain surgery* I think I'll hand the scalpel to the receptionist at the hospital front desk. I mean, she's really nice. Really cute, too. She seems to have much more free time than those overpaid brain surgeons. And, well, she's also a hospital employee just like they are, right?
Besides, I heard she carves a mean Thanksgiving turkey!
* Don't go there...
"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."
— Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932
Being in the advertising business, and seeing how this is related, here is something ill share that hasn't really bubbled up to the top yet. Turns out that there are big problems with "new media" as an revenue stream. Click through ratios have been going south for some time, and conversions are in free fall. Everybody has figured out how to avoid the ads. Forced ad watching is very unsuccessful. The computer user is even more likely to click away than the old school TV watcher with a remote. Attention spans are dwindling. To someone invested in the model this just sounds contrarian, but the facts are starting to roll in. The Internet is many things, but by and large it isn't a place where advertising pays big dividends, and that is becoming more true every day.
That's just, like, my opinion, man...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
that would be great david,
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
but i think it is a lot harder to write a "good article"
than take a 'fair photograph"
I understand the need for revenue but from a purely journalistic standpoint, this could be good news.
Originally Posted by JBrunner
I've a degree in journalism and had worked for a few local weekly papers. Unfortunately, there aren't many "good" articles any more, even in the daily papers.
Originally Posted by jnanian
And these days, it is very hard to find a fair article.
Originally Posted by jnanian
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
As someone who writes press releases as part of my day job, it's always disappointing to see how much of what passes for "journalism" is just mildly rewriting someone's press release, but then it's all the more encouraging when you can tell that someone's taken the time to do some additional research and write a real story.