Chicago Sun-Times lays off entire photo staff and is now using more video !
- Thread starter joe1946
- Start date
Cory Braun
Well-known member
That's horrible. They also fired all photographers for all of their suburban newspapers that they own.
adkimery
Veteran
Filling formerly staff positions w/freelancers is a cost saving measure as staffers require more overhead. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the photogs ended up back on the payroll as freelancers. Certain sucks though and hopefully all the people involved can land on their feet.
-Andrew
-Andrew
Michael Schrengohst
Well-known member
They would not be on the payroll if they are freelancers. Being a freelancer means no benefits and no insurance. Many, many companies will be doing this heading into 2014.
I have been a "freelancer" for 30 years. The freedom is worth more than the benefits. My son was hired by McDonalds. They hire 20 people at a time and give them 8-10 hours per week.
This will be the new normal. Full time "employment" will be a thing of the past.
I have been a "freelancer" for 30 years. The freedom is worth more than the benefits. My son was hired by McDonalds. They hire 20 people at a time and give them 8-10 hours per week.
This will be the new normal. Full time "employment" will be a thing of the past.
The traditional newspaper business in general is going down the Youtubes. Most publishers haven't figured out how to monetize online content effectively and few people are buying or reading print editions. It is a rapidly shrinking industry in the social media age. Too bad, because good journalism is also becoming more rare. Now all we get is pundits, first person noise, and talking points. Less concern for confirmed factual accuracy and little thoughtful analysis by writers and editors that at least attempt to be critical, honest, and impartial.
adkimery
Veteran
Not to split hairs, but being on staff and being on payroll aren't the same thing. If you are a paid employee (staff or freelance) you are on the payroll.
'Permalance' (a freelancer working long term in what could be a staff position) is already pretty common and will probably just keep increasing (as you alluded to). At many places I've seen that have loads of permalancers (in a variety of positions) the pay is comparable to a staff position so it's a double whammy for the employee. No staff benefits and no higher rate that being freelance would usually entail.
It's terrible to be sure: both for the photographers and for the sake of high-quality news gathering. But what were the alternatives? Newspapers have not figured out how to make money in a changing world. You keep on all the photographers, you go bankrupt faster. You fire them all, you bought more time to either a) figure out a new economic model, or b) go bankrupt a little later so the management has had the opportunity to suck on the dying body of the fourth estate for awhile longer, sending their kids to college; the photographers and their kids can hit skid row right away. Any photographer still working for a newspaper anywhere has just gotten a wakeup call - they're next, it's just a matter of time.
Makes sense and anyone could have seen it coming. Everyone has a cell phone now, and most cell phones shoot video. that means there's a good chance someone has video of the incident happening and audiences prefer that first hand documentation to photos after the fact.
If a house catches on fire, the neighbor across the street is going to have more immediate video than any photos a reporter can take after they arrive on the scene.
A recent example is video of the Boston Marathon bombers shoot out with police. A man caught the shoot out on camera with his cell phone. By the time any reporter could have gotten within miles of the incident it was all over.
If a house catches on fire, the neighbor across the street is going to have more immediate video than any photos a reporter can take after they arrive on the scene.
A recent example is video of the Boston Marathon bombers shoot out with police. A man caught the shoot out on camera with his cell phone. By the time any reporter could have gotten within miles of the incident it was all over.
David W. Jones
Veteran
This is also happening at TV stations. ENG staff being let go, and replaced by young underpaid MMJs.
Grug
Veteran
Honestly I think this is one of the scariest things happening in this new digital age - good journalism serves accountability and public knowledge, without it we're all at the mercy of PR departments.
Think about it though. Good journalism also becomes less necessary. It was very important when you relied on 3 networks and a couple of Newspapers for information before the internet. Those were your sources. If it was wrong there, you'd never know.
Now it's much harder to keep secrets with iphones video taping everything, email conversations, twitter, facebook, podcasts, youtube videos, vimeo, pinterest, cable tv stations, satellite radio....
The WHAT still gets reported. The difference is now YOU are responsible for figuring out the WHY.
For example, there was a tornado in Oklahoma recently that did massive damage. EVERYTHING substiantates that, twitter, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, AP news, Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow, and so on. No one disagrees on WHAT happened. A tornado.
They WHY? Everyone disagrees. Was it "global warming", "climate change", was it just weather like we've always had, is it getting worse, better, the same, unknown? EVERYONE has an opinion on that.
Used to be ABC would tell you WHY and you'd have to believe it. That was that. Now, they only tell you WHAT and the WHY is up to you to figure out.
I don't think that's so bad.
adkimery
Veteran
How has good journalism become less necessary? If anything, IMO, it's become more necessary as the world has become much more connected. Just look at the bombings in Boston. According to the uniformed, unverified pseudo-first hand accounts of social media a missing student was wrongfully fingered as the bomber and the Czech Republic was labeled as the home country of the bombers.
Some of the WHAT might still get reported but w/o all of the WHAT there is no way to figure out the WHY and that's the role of a good journalist. To ferret information out, information that might not be readily available to anyone else, verify it and report it.
-Andrew
More on topic technology marches on. There used to be a job for the guy that shoveled coal into the furnace of the train. that job doesn't exist anymore (although the Unions kept it around for a long time after the Steam Engine was gone).
Half the population today is walking around with some kind of video camera in their pocket. Media organizations are using them for cheap photographers and videographers. Things were different before cell phone cameras got so good and so ubiquituous.
Half the population today is walking around with some kind of video camera in their pocket. Media organizations are using them for cheap photographers and videographers. Things were different before cell phone cameras got so good and so ubiquituous.
Wow. You've ALL been around here long enough to know that politics, etc., just does not fly here. If you want to debate global warming, etc., there are plenty of other places to do it. This is not one.
Right about politics, though I didn't think global warming was part of it - that to me was science, pure and simple, for or against. Yes, it can be - and has been - politicized, but it doesn't have to be, so as long as we stay away from politics, I thought it was OK to discuss scientific fact (without bringing politics into it). But of course, it's up to the mod to draw the line as to where they think it shades into being against TOS, and where not. So no dispute, just a clarification about how some users - who might have been around for a long time - may have thought they were in fact on the right side of the TOS line... sometimes folks get it right, sometimes it's a borderline and they get it wrong... c'est la vie, no harm, no foul.
The rule is not new:
if the footage isn't raw and 4k is it worth anything though?
You're right. I didn't look closely enough - in that "politics" in the TOS actually encompasses a much broader category, and into 'controversial topics' and 'current affairs', which may, but may NOT have anything to do with politics. It's right there in the TOS, I just didn't see it. Who knows, would it make sense to break it out into a separate rule? Sort of like we have "no religion" even though the line separating religion and politics is much, much, much closer than the line separating "controversial topics" and politics. Regardless, point made - controversial topics. Still somewhat amusing to me that scientific facts enter this category (isn't science supposed to be the poster boy for unemotional objectivity?), but such is the world.