# Newspaper Dumps Photographers, Wants Video



## distant.star (May 31, 2013)

.
Claiming readers are clamoring for more video news coverage, the Chicago Sun-Times has dumped its entire photography staff.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-chicago-sun-times-photo-20130530,0,4361142.story

Seems a bit drastic, and probably related to short-term budget thinking, but it's what I'm expecting to see long-term. Still photos are going to struggle to maintain relevancy.

They're going to use stringers/freelancers for some still photography in the print edition, I guess.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 31, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> Claiming readers are clamoring for more video news coverage, the Chicago Sun-Times has dumped its entire photography staff.
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-chicago-sun-times-photo-20130530,0,4361142.story
> ...



Wow, that is a bit much and that is a major paper too, wow. Seems a bit nuts. man.


----------



## dexstrose (May 31, 2013)

I know, its really sad.

At one newspaper I use to work at, they made some writers take pictures and videos of council meetings. Oh you should see what camera they use (p&s), the pictures usually are low resolution and terrible to work with. Lucky newsprint sucks the detail by printing at around 150 dpi and making pictures look flat.

Next to that, if the newspaper has a subscription to AP or Reuters, they can get all their photos there. Especially since AP has offices nation wide to shoot local happenings or events.


----------



## deleteme (May 31, 2013)

Our local paper still has a few still photographers but ALL the writers are expected to take stills AND video when out on assignment.

They do the still with P&S cameras and really give new meaning to "f8 and be there". The res is fine and the exposure is generally good. The composition may want but the readers never notice.

As for video I doubt that many really go online to watch some wretched groundbreaking or a comment from a dogcatcher.


----------



## preppyak (May 31, 2013)

distant.star said:


> Seems a bit drastic, and probably related to short-term budget thinking, but it's what I'm expecting to see long-term. Still photos are going to struggle to maintain relevancy


Especially in the news world, where, if a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth a thousand more.

Heck, just think of the Boston bombing, there were tons of cell phone and security camera footage, and all posted very quickly online. While they might not capture it the way a professional does, they still tell the story well enough. Especially when keeping 20 photographers on staff probably costs you north of a million dollars, in an environment where pictures aren't the main focus


----------



## sanj (Jun 1, 2013)

*Noooooooo....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

http://appadvice.com/appnn/2013/06/chicago-sun-times-fires-photography-staff-offers-reporters-iphone-camera-classes


----------



## Click (Jun 1, 2013)

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

Alex Garcia has described the move as being “idiotic at worst, and hopelessly uninformed at best”


I think that says it all.


----------



## RGF (Jun 1, 2013)

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

Typical business short sight decision. Save a few $ now, pay later. 
But you got to enjoy the humor


----------



## J.R. (Jun 1, 2013)

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

Gotta feel bad for the guys involved :'(. To see what's been cut, go here - 

http://j.mp/sun-times-photos


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 1, 2013)

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

newspapers have big problems. I understand keeping the reporters & getting rid of the photographers.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 1, 2013)

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



jdramirez said:


> newspapers have big problems. I understand keeping the reporters & getting rid of the photographers.



It's funny, here in buffalo our newspaper is doing just fine, but that's because they are using their presses to print a ton of stuff for other businesses. Sounds to me more like an old business that's not changing with the times...


----------



## mdmphoto (Jun 1, 2013)

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

Sad, though all but inevitable. The preponderance of camera-phones, in conjunction with wi-fi, "guys with cameras", lo-fi print media resolution, s-rgb web requirements, the expense of a "good" camera and accessories, paying a professional staff photographer, and an artificially crunched economy- along with EVERYONE'S desire for something for a lot less, or even nothing, have all converged to this move by a cynical and desperate corporate entity. Why bother with hi-res "quality" imagery, and pay the price for it, when a quick cellie snapshot will amply illustrate the story printed in the daily paper? Early on, I did think that maybe I'd make eating money from my avocation, but I learned quickly that the closed and unwelcoming ever-shrinking fraternity of news photogs was not the way for a guy like me with a full-time job and family responsibilities. I continue on because of my love for the (ultimately) printed image. On those relatively few occasions that someone's appreciation of my work has included purchasing a print I have been pleased but ever- cognizant of the "gravy" nature of the event. I have been associated, though, with a group of professional photographers in Chicago who seemingly all have been Pulitzer- or other award-winning photographers for all the newspapers in Chicagoland over the last 50 years; including the sun-times. I do grieve this milestone for them, their loss in vocational fulfillment, and as, for popular culture, the past is somehow diminished, perceptually, and discarded in favor of the expedient present, and what was once vital is now considered quaint historical oddity. I was at the Rolling Stones concert last night and there was a (certainly understandably and wise-enough) ban on "professional" cameras, but everyone's -including mine's, cell phones' batteries were dead by the end of the show. Such an event as that translates well using a cell phone to the extent that hi-res "quality" offers little to any profit potential; the benefit is all journalistic documentary; which is also the allure of such photography. Such is "progress" in the modern world as we all adapt or die. I shoot on for love and documentation, hopefully communication, but, -gad...


----------



## dstppy (Jun 1, 2013)

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

Where's the problem?

Good, on-the-scene photography is wasted on media like this. Anyone who is good at this sort of thing will end up making more doing freelance; if other media outlets follow, it'll end up driving the price of high quality shots up.

Would it have been better to hear that they'd told reporters to use their existing camera phones and hired expert quality photoshoppers? Seems to work for certain countries with nationalized media


----------



## distant.star (Jun 1, 2013)

.
Latest turn is they say they're going to train reporters (all editorial staff) in "iphoneography."

This may be an appropriate business decision, but for sure they're not going to win any Pulitzers!

The times they are a changin'.


----------



## Pi (Jun 1, 2013)

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

They should fire the journalists and teach the photographers how to report from their smartphones.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jun 1, 2013)

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

You can expect a lot more of this kind of thing as more newspapers spiral around the drain before they go down.

Not only has technology changed, but most newspapers insist on pushing a biased political agenda that automatically alienates about half of their prospective customers. I stopped reading newspapers about a decade ago and stopped watching television about five years ago. I don't need elite journalists telling me what to think. I'll end this here, as this is not really the place for such a discussion.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Jun 1, 2013)

We can't have video everywhere, stills will still be relevant, but the future is motion and you need to change to accommodate and deliver, and being able to do hybrid shooting with video capable stills cameras has really allowed a lot of that to happen rather seamlessly, even though not many things in technique/theory carry over.
And what the... Sun Times just shot themselves in the foot; their understanding of video being more relevant than photos right there is admitting to the world that their own NEWSPAPER business is irrelevant, why even bother with a business that admits themselves that they deserve no place in this age!?!?

Yeah a P&S or not-even-dedicated-for-photos iPhone can get a fine shot, cover an event whatever. But no manual controls, forget about low light, any fast action, and surely miss not able to go any wider or longer.
The reporters and journalists have the advantage of being able to go places and meet people the average Joe can't, but the average Joe would be using nicer cameras more often than these folk who would be bringing their iPhones specifically for shoots. Doubt they'll get anything that's any better or any more relevant than what that average Joe is going to capture... What the Paper is doing though I think, is trying to get themselves to survive on user submitted photos, and if their own force uses iPhones then well, everyone's on par, so you can never tell if the shot came from one of their "iPhoneographers" or a local someone who was on scene.
Won't win any puliterzers maybe, but the internet can't stop buzzing with the ever tiring "wow, shot with a phone!!" tag


----------



## that1guyy (Jun 1, 2013)

I think it was inevitable. Video much more valuable than a photo and its best to know both. Adapt or die.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 1, 2013)

> Still photos are going to struggle to maintain relevancy.



I'm a full-time video guy who does stills for a hobby.
I appreciate that most folk using the forums are likely to be the opposite, or at least, more photography biased than video.

The two disciplines are entirely different, even if like me you produce both on the exact same kit.

When I think in stills I think composition I think how to make every frame count. In video I think in sequences. Lots of shots = good. I still think about composition, but I no longer require any one individual shot to be strong enough to tell the story all on it's own.

I am not a great one for the usual celeb pap pics in newspapers, I tend to read broadsheets, not because I am clever or want to appear clever, but am humble enough to admit that I need a clever persons help, or several perspectives from several clever people to help me understand the worlds events. Quality photojournalism completes that. I somehow understand a story better if it's told in coherent prose with an environmental portrait. 

When I was a kid my dad used to buy the then new 'independent' on a Saturday, as the photo suppliement of the weeks events was second to none, mostly if not all b&w, of gritty stories told from in amongst it. I can remember the technical prowess, I can only image the personal skills, the charm, the persuasion, the conviction, the integrity to get the trust to open the doors on the view that told the story, as seen from the people who lived it.

Brilliant exceptional video can do that. Mediocre iphone shot press calls cannot.

I should'nt say this perhaps, given my current employer, but the newspapers were dumbed down in the ukby a certain Rupert Murdoch. Readers wanted tits and scandal. Quality tabloids (not an oxymoron, once) ditched the likes of John Pilger and his essays written so that the working man could understand complex battles in far away lands. Palestine. South Africa. Not page 3 and football.

But it's what folk seemed to want. Despite any claims to be the fourth estate, they have no statutory requirements other than to make money for their shareholders.

I hope all the kids thinking of studying photography note this news... I'm wouldn't tell them not to, I would just tell them to take note.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 1, 2013)

Sad indeed


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 1, 2013)

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

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


----------



## PilotJoe (Jun 1, 2013)

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 (Jun 1, 2013)

Another opinion:

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


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 1, 2013)

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 (Jun 1, 2013)

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 (Jun 2, 2013)

.
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 (Jun 4, 2013)

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 (Jun 4, 2013)

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 (Jun 4, 2013)

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 (Jun 4, 2013)

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 (Jun 4, 2013)

Zv said:


> 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 (Jun 4, 2013)

mrzero said:


> 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 (Jun 4, 2013)

Valvebounce said:


> 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 (Jun 4, 2013)

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 (Jun 4, 2013)

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 (Jun 5, 2013)

distant.star said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...



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 ******* from the outset. 

Cheers Graham.


----------



## drummstikk (Jun 5, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jun 5, 2013)

drummstikk said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2013)

distant.star said:


> 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.


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 5, 2013)

I've found the following regarding 'news turns video' (from written article with a photo or few):
1) the quality of many news videos is often poor (quality of sound, shake, background distraction, etc).
2) it takes me MUCH longer to scan and/or receive information.

So when there are video links in news items (particularly if they are the main / only source of information in that article) - I will avoid it.

For years I haven't looked at news on TV (since the late 80's regularly - and since the early 90's I haven't used TV for news pretty much at all).
Both at work (in my breaks) - and at home - I want to choose what to read, by clicking on news headlines, and read the top paragraph - that will determine whether I need or want to read more. Only for world breaking news (eg huge natural calamity, or outbreak of war, or a truly good news story) - might I tune into TV, or view news videos online. That's only about once every few months (at most!)

I will continue to enjoy photography as a hobby - and appreciate seeing others' quality photography in various media (online, magazines, newspapers, etc). Even though video is taking over some of the traditionally 'written and photographed' articles - there will always be a place for it. And I expect quality publications will still reserve a space for photos and written articles. Who knows, there might even be a return to that some day!

Regards

Paul


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jun 5, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> 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.



Actually, they're not, for several reasons:

1. As pj1974 wrote, " it takes me MUCH longer to scan and/or receive information".

2. Search engines can't search anything inside the video, e.g. turn speech into searchable text.

3. It's still clearer to display some stuff in tables, graphs, etc, such as price comparisons.

Also, part of the problem is people expecting information available on the Internet to be free, which makes it hard for newspapers to make money from the information they put on their web site.




AmbientLight said:


> 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.



No, the measurement for success is profit.

One possible way to make money is to imitate TV, with articles being shot in video and accompanied by ads breaks. For this to work, video would have to be good enough for people to watch till the ad break, stay for the ad, then come for more. That would require, of course, people who can shoot good video.




AmbientLight said:


> 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.



I think news can't go extinct. People in general aren't willing to go back to the middle ages, as in settling for news travelling by word of mouth.

A lot of newspapers will go bankrupt, and a few will step up, provide higher quality material (analysis, criticism, balanced view, etc), and make the money.


----------



## mrzero (Jun 5, 2013)

distant.star said:


> mrzero said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Thanks, that is the first time I've actually seen it sourced. I still think it is hard to believe. I know the iphone really transformed phone photography, but I just don't see it working here.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jun 5, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> AmbientLight said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Actually Ellen is correct, but only because you are also correct. The longer a person stays on a page, the more ads rotate thru, thus profit is increased by time spent on a page. And unlike TV, the ads don't have to wait for a break--they are in the header and side margins. But as others have pointed out videos take longer to consume than an article, thus more video=longer page view=more ads=more profit=more sucky user experience.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jun 6, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > AmbientLight said:
> ...



Question is whether the person is looking at the ads in the header & side margins. As the person is looking at the video segment - remember the gorilla experiment? - I wouldn't bet any money on him actually noticing the ads outside of the video.


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 6, 2013)

the graphic quality of newspapers is pretty bad. you really don't need 22 megapixels to put a print in the newspaper. sure, if someone wants the print later... but otherwise nope.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 6, 2013)

A little secret... I work within the print media, and yes it is making the difficult transition...

We still do video, but what is really want are online galleries. Online galleries are cheap and quick to make and generate the main thing that's useful to our business - page impressions. 

Video has it's place when it's well done. Cameraphones can tell a story much more effectively than 1'000 words sometimes (witness the footage from the Woolwich murder), the place for properly produced, crafted video is on TV, for newspapers the cost and effort per page impression is less good value to the business than a gallery.

Video no more killed the photographer than it killed the radio star. Times evolve. I've lost a lot of colleagues who just wouldn't adapt. Bums on seats is what matters. Giving the customer what they think they want is what matters. This is my head speaking. My heart is screaming how wrong it all is.


----------



## jhpeterson (Jun 6, 2013)

As a photojournalist, I feel a need to weigh in. I posted the following on this very topic in a social media site yesterday:

"I'll admit to having a bias, but this seems such a tragic loss. Not only for photographers, but also for the publishing world in general, and, even more importantly, for an educated public. Too many stories these days are not given the treatment they deserve, and many others are missed entirely.
I still consider myself a photojournalist more than anything, and, despite the fact I've done this well for more than three decades, with each passing year it become more challenging to succeed in this field. 
And, replacing the articles and photos with video? I may be a very visual person, but this doesn't fly with me. It's that I seldom have the patience to wait for one to load, then often wait some more to wade through a sponsor's ad, only to watch a six-minute clip when all I needed to see could have been told in sixty seconds. Not to mention having to pull out my headphones, so I can listen without disturbing those around me. 
Am I the only one who finds that looking at words and pictures is actually a much more efficient use of time?"

While video has an important place in journalism (think insightful interviews or a story that needs to be told as a continuum), I find it used far too frequently as a poor substitute for good still photography.


----------



## distant.star (Jun 6, 2013)

.
Good to see the working journalists weighing in.

*Ramirez:* You're right that you don't need a 22MB file for newsprint (or Web), what you do need is an eye for visual storytelling. I can put words on paper that will make you joyful, tearful or any other appropriate emotion, but I can't do that with a camera. I'll get a picture that connects you to the story (with any kind of camera, including my $35-P&S), but I rarely bring that spark a real professional photojournalist delivers consistently. Here's a page that shows the kind of work I mean:

http://guncrisis.org/category/crime-scenes/


*Paul, *your:

"Video no more killed the photographer than it killed the radio star. Times evolve."

reminds me of two people who did not transition from radio to TV. Jack Johnstone, one of the top five radio drama producer/director types walked away. In the early fifties, he was directing Marilyn Monroe, Jimmy Stewart, etc. in radio drama productions. In October, 1962, he sat in his living room listening to the last two radio dramas produced in the "golden age" of radio. When they finished, he walked over to the radio, turned it off and said, "Well, that's the end of an era." He was offered work in TV and film, but he was done at age 56. He considered TV and film "dirty business." So he moved to Santa Barbara, spent the next 30 years fishing and lawn bowling.

Radio actor Bob Bailey was a big star in the fifties. He tried to transition to film/TV, but he didn't have the physical appearance to match his big voice, so he failed. His big claim to film fame was a bit appearance in "Birdman of Alcatraz," ironically as a reporter. By the mid-sixties he was a drunk on skid row in Los Angeles calling his brother for money. He died in a nursing home 10 years later; even he did not remember who or what he had been.

Finally, *Peterson,* I agree completely. Unfortunately, I think we have become an attention-deficit-disorder generation. That and technology that serves it are forming a great storm that's chewing up old delivery systems. Few people seem to be able to concentrate for more than 10 seconds on anything. There seems an almost monumental level of self-absorption and narcissism that makes people look for no more than a quick dose of whatever "news" confirms their view of society/world. Good pictures are no more appreciated than blurry cell phone shots or horrible utube videos. The expectations are driving the creation of product. If crap sells, why serve filet mignon?

Oh, and stikk, good to meet you! I knew there had to be one photographer who could string good words together.


----------



## jhpeterson (Jun 6, 2013)

distant.star said:


> Finally, *Peterson,* I agree completely. Unfortunately, I think we have become an attention-deficit-disorder generation. That and technology that serves it are forming a great storm that's chewing up old delivery systems. Few people seem to be able to concentrate for more than 10 seconds on anything. There seems an almost monumental level of self-absorption and narcissism that makes people look for no more than a quick dose of whatever "news" confirms their view of society/world. Good pictures are no more appreciated than blurry cell phone shots or horrible utube videos. The expectations are driving the creation of product. If crap sells, why serve filet mignon?


Perhaps, I too, have attention deficit disorder. Or, I am just impatient. But, I'm far less likely to wait for a video to load, when I can see words and still images right in front of me.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 6, 2013)

The great loss to me isn't the articles you seek out, which you can do quite easily with google, it's the articles, reviews, interviews that you stumble on quite by mistake. Sometimes because a strong image has drawn you in.

Blame the democratisation of the technology if you will, but everybody reading this thread has a DSLR and probably uploads their images to the web be it on facebook or flickr, and most of us will have a smartphone, and probably last bought a newspaper god knows when.

Can't be poacher and gamekeeper. 

The tragedy is that, once newspapers die, what are we going to be left with? Mad forums with trolls and braggarts? How many will pay for news or analysis now that we are so accustomed to getting it for free?

These are questions that are above my pay grade.


----------



## AmbientLight (Jun 7, 2013)

Paul, you raise a very good question here and I don't think this is beyond your pay grade at all. I also wonder about how information will be spread after newspapers as we know them have become more or less extinct.

On the positive side this trend might remove a lot of political agitation and propaganda, but what happens once we have only unchanneled information? In case of democracy taking away layers of obfuscation and manipulation is quite a good thing, as seen in the Swiss example. If you compare YouTube to old-fashioned TV, there is also a noticeable freedom of unwanted advertising, but then there are user comments out there on YouTube, which you wouldn't want to read at all, especially in case of religious themes. In such cases the quality of information actually becomes dependent on corporate censoring, which in such cases is a good thing.

The same trend may be happening to news and media in general, but we must all beware of companies misusing available streams of communication for viral marketing and how our precious information suddenly becomes dependent on very few corporate information sources such as Google.


----------

