Apparently we struck a really raw nerve today in the photojournalism community when we published a piece about free photo sites and tools for newsrooms that are strapped for resources. (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 -
-
-
Wait. Visuals DEMAND to be noticed? Or the stories won’t be noticed without visuals? So there’s an arguement right there to make every effort possible for visuals NOT be window dressing. To your point, visuals are critical, so why are they treated as afterthoughts?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@poynter But here's the REAL thing. That article on YOUR website places ZERO value on photography...making it an "afterthought"..."if at all" I believe is how YOUR author put it. So, please...DON'T take it down. By publishing it, we see what Poynter condones: Cheap journalism!Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Again, you're picking and choosing what parts of journalism warrant care, success, and sustainability because it's deeply engrained in the culture to devalue photos. How does this help?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This here IS the problem. Journalism isn't 'content'. The demand for RELEVANT visuals is the point. I'm not sure how
@Poynter can remotely try to defend this positioning. You are promoting the dumbing down to 'content'.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No
@poynter here’s the thing. Good quality photojournalism makes words relevant and gives them validity. To many they are the truth to the thought and make it memorable. Research long ago at Syracuse figured this out - see link https://instagram.com/p/BcTBRT8B0pa/Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You’re making it worse.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And good photography is defensible when you get sued, or worse face criminal action in court. Remember the agency, the photographer, and the publication will all be named and are all liable. At least my images will stand the test. And getting paid allows me to afford a lawyer.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Heard about this thing called wire agencies? It'll also ensure that you're on the safe side legally.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.