Photojournalism 2011 (and beyond)

<p>Too many editors and most of the public seem willing to accept mediocrity in journalism today. Stories, video and photography that would have ended up in the trash can only a decade ago are lead stories now. Incredibly poor quality video is on national news, front pages so bland it's not worth the bother. Though I've given up the photojournalism business I have friends on the staffs of several major newspapers. Morale is bad, the work they are producing is just dull. I'll concede that a truly major event captured on a phone is better than much higher quality work after the fact but the majors are accepting crap from nearly anyone now and using it. It's blamed on money but I'm have a hard time believing that. While most big cities have lost at least one major publication most of the medium size markets seem to be doing just fine. The staffers I know just don't care enough anymore to go out and find the stories worth printing. The result is that I only rarely read news publications any more, never look at their web content and spend maybe 2 hours a week total on tv news. Theres just nothing there.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

Depth?

What media outlet are you referring to?

I can't watch mainstream media anymore, it is a constant assault of insulting paternalism. Newscasters talk to their

audience as if they are children.

Additionallly,

I just read the story about the guy who set that woman on fire in the elevator. Every single US outlet ran the exact same

text. Word for word. The Guardian in the UK at least wrote their own copy.

Even less professional than citizen journalists... the images for the story were from a surveilance camera. Just like the

Chinese toddler video. But in this case, they(gatekeepers and editors) all deemed that we children should only be able to

view three frames of the video. I'm a big boy now, I don't need my content censored.

Here is a youtube of an ABC affiliate broadcast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI0_cleLDGk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

They are talking to children. Look at their acting, it's horrible.

<p>Richard, the surveillance video was reported to have been seized by police as evidence who only released 3 frames in the hopes of public identification of the perpetrator. I don't think news crews had access to the entire video capture.</p>

<p>The event occurred in Brooklyn and was quickly reported locally within hours. It would have taken that much time for any outside news outlet just to prepare and get there and do no better than what was reported. </p>

<p>For me as a consumer, the way in which the story was reported is adequate. It's not award winning journalism, but neither does the story merit the effort of industry heavyweights to spend untold resources to report it. </p>

<p><em>Depth?</em><br>

<em>What media outlet are you referring to?</em><br>

I read the British "Daily Telegraph" for the sheer breadth of its newsgathering (don't like its conservative bias too much) plus the Sunday "Observer" for some liberal/left-wing balance. I also subscribe to TIME for a US (right-wing) viewpoint. I watch the BBC News 24, particularly the "Breakfast" show, which for maturity and intelligence beats the competition on other British channels by a million miles. I avoid anything controlled or influenced by Murdoch.<br>

For me it is unimaginable that amateur reporters could get anywhere near the coverage of these media. Example: There has been a lot of camera phone imagery of the protests in Syria recently - access is officially impossible for outside journalists and would be dangerous going on fatal anyway. Most of this imagery is such a blur that it requires explanation by a studio anchor - without this, it is meaningless and open to any interpretation across a 180° spectrum.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As a consumer of photographic images, I don't care if the photographer is a photojournalist or not. I don't care what degrees they have earned. I don't care how many years they have worked at some paper.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too.</p>

<p><em>I can't watch mainstream media anymore, it is a constant assault of insulting paternalism.</em></p>

<p>You're talking about American television. You're quite right about that, but then there are other mainstream media. For example, New York Times seems quite fine to me.</p>

<p><em>Me too.</em><br>

So that leaves you with amateur camera phone images and the "National Enquirer", Happy?</p>