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)
-
-
Journalism is specific, journalism is not generic. Journalism is precise, journalism is not vague. Journalism illuminates, journalism does not decorate. To believe otherwise is to demean visual journalists, to believe they are lesser. This post should be retracted-it is abhorrent
-
Don’t take the story down. It’s an important thread that needs addressing. This is the way-way-back-machine when visuals were treated as an afterthought (as admitted in the posted article) and the visuals team was treated as a service dept.
-
It seems the only thing we have learned is that hey! Pictures matter to clicks! Instead of hey! Visuals are content that matters to storytelling! Photographs are not window dressing!
-
My head exploded when I read this article. While I get its intended premise to save the reporter time and dress up the presumably well-written words, it was far too casually written. The few sentences about ethics? C’mon!! As a career picture editor, you’re killing me!
-
Most reporters I work with respect the visual voice, in fact, they work in tandem with visuals. But with few visual advocates in our newsrooms, the real question is how do we do right by our viewers and readers? Stock images? I think not.
@poynter you can do better. -
@Poynter@thekalish@NPPA How about we work together on answering the real questions? How do we do right by readers without visual advocates in the work place? And if there are photo editors and photographers, how are they being utilized? As editors or service a department? -
As educators to journalists, you can do better than this. Your headline promises advice on "finding the right image for your story." Photojournalism is information that adds to the story. Finding stock "art" is a failure to our audience. An unrelated photo is not the right image.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's disappointing and alarming that there's no longer a visual advocate anywhere near the top of your masthead. ESPECIALLY given the industry's broad/swift pivot to video, we can all use thoughtful guidance on how to adapt/innovate while maintaining high standards.
-
It's also disappointing and alarming that apparently no visual journalists were involved in the reporting or publication of the article in question.
-
No. 1 on the
@nytimes' 2020 report? Visuals. And the need to use them responsibly, under strong leadership, with visual journalists helping lead stories (concept of visuals as a service department is demeaning, outdated and counterproductive).https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Shame on you. Visuals are not there just to get people to click on a story. Photojournalism is journalism, it is as important as the words and design and editing. We are a team, and every part of that team needs to be equally valued to serve our communities well.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think most of us can empathize with the context of the piece but the underlying tone/mindset I think is the issue--Value is given only to text. If the platforms "demand visuals," photographers and their work shouldn't be portrayed as something to tack on as cheaply as possible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
When majority of the industry are freelancers & photographers rely licensing of their work to earn a living. Isn't it about paid content? Shouldn't creators/outlets of original content compensated? isnt what paywall is about? What planet are you on? Shameful.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Let’s talk about why text is always treated as more valuable than photos. Why do we need free photos to illustrate text? Maybe strapped outlets can run photo stories and have computer-generated text with it. Doesn’t that sound stupid? Yet photos are treated as more disposable.
-
Perhaps photos are treated as disposable because there's a push to always have a photo on a story, no matter the relevance? I blame Facebook and Twitter's social cards.
-
Agreed. And increasingly short attention spans on the internet.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is pretty basic. Not once in the story does either writer advocate hiring a photojournalist to illustrate a story. Not once. I don't want this story taken down - it's important that it stays intact. The writers didn't write it for free...nor should they.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Addressing the "integrity of journalism and ethics" by talking about copyright misses the point. You simply cannot advocate free content as a solution to overworked newsrooms. Copyright is a legal mechanism to protect IP holders, not a means to fairly pay photographers.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Bullshit. You blew it. Stop trying to backpedal your ignorant mistake. The “think” in “think tank” departed when Kenny Irby left Poynter. Why don’t you suggest writers create stories for a dollar? Yeah, right. No way.
@nppa@nppalawyerThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You should tune into the Facebook live feed of POYi to reacquaint yourself with great storytelling photojournalism by visual journalists who operate with empathy, care and sacrifice. We’re nearing the end of week one. You won’t find this on Flickr.
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.