So let’s talk about this. We want to acknowledge your anger and your concerns. We’ve worked with you. We’ve seen you have to juggle 12 assignments in a day. We’ve seen your colleagues get laid off. We’ve seen space shrink for displaying your work.
-
-
Show this thread
-
We understand the concerns about the integrity of journalism and ethics. And we addressed those in this piece as it related to copyright issues. To the degree that we need more conversation about these sites and ways to present visual journalism online, we’d love to explore that.
Show this thread -
But here’s the thing … There is a reality about producing work in the digital space. We’re all having to find a way to impart information on platforms that demand visuals to be noticed.
Show this thread -
If you read the piece and take it for what we intended it to be — a solution to a problem that’s being felt acutely by web and social media editors in the digital age with diminishing resources — it’s just that and no more.
Show this thread -
We’re not advocating illustrating news stories with stolen images at the expense of hard-working photographers.
Show this thread -
From the feedback we’re getting, we know that this message will just scratch the surface of a deeper conversation that probably needs to happen on this topic. But we wanted you to know that we heard you and we’re listening.
Show this thread -
Some of you have advocated taking the article down or issuing a retraction. We don’t feel either is warranted. But let’s keep the dialogue going, because as one of the writers on the piece said:
Show this thread -
“One of Poynter's biggest roles is to serve as a hub for conversation about journalism. I think if we're seeing things one way and they're seeing things another, it's probably only going to help us to host both sides of that conversation.”
Show this thread -
New conversation -
-
-
It's important to understand that a large part of the photoj community's response to the article (and to this thread) is that the very idea that photos are merely illustrative pieces that only need to be considered in the end. It's that attitude that put many newsrooms ...
-
... in the situation they are in now: sometimes entirely devoid of visual journalists and thinkers. Sure, that is a reality newsrooms face, but it's a reality borne from devaluing the role visual journalists play in the process. If you truly want to do good for journalists ...
-
... continue your track record of excellent education for journalists - don't advocate short cuts and the use of questionable sources. Yes, there is dialogue to be had, but that dialogue doesn't start with 'we face a harsh reality.' We all know that. We want to make it better.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Apparently yes. Free destroys the value of everyone’s work. Also, never use the word “but” when apologizing. It turns it into an excuse.
-
Are you suggesting this is an apology,
@kennethjarecke? -
Tbh seems more of a sorry, not sorry.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You can start by involving visual leadership in your publishing.
@irbyman was a thoughtful, passionate and balanced voice for#photojournalism. If you want a replacement, I know some people: http://www.kalishworkshop.org - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Ugh...you still don’t get it..
-
It was a very poor response. Not even an apology.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.