1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is this letter out of line?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by MTM, Dec 27, 2010.

  1. JRoyal

    JRoyal Well-Known Member

    I never said don't run the fumble. I said think about the display of the shot. Of all the shots in the slideshow, I'd probably have picked the postgame dejection above as the main art. That one was awesome for summing up how the team felt. The fumble would have been secondary or gone inside. I think a strong package could have been built with the action shot I posted, but the dejection was much better.

    And I never said you don't mention the performance or that you "gloss over" it. If a guy throws five INTs or a team has five turnovers, a lot of times, that's part the story, probably the main part. You may phrase it differently ("Johnny Quarterback threw five interceptions" or "Podunkville took advantage of five interceptions" instead of "Johnny Quarterback's five interceptions were the difference in the game" or "Johnny Quarterback's five interceptions cost his team the state title").

    All I'm saying is a lot of people seem to be of the mindset that you run the photos and don't think twice about the people in them. I disagree. I think you consider the kids, and I think it's a lot more than five percent of the decision. Doesn't mean it's the main thing, and doesn't mean you don't run the great shots because someone's feelings might get hurt. If there had been one fumble in the whole game (not the case here), do you run the fumble shot? No, or at most as an inside shot. But here, it tells part of the story, so you run it.

    But I think you can consider the display when you decide to run it. It drives some of our photogs crazy, I think, but we've gotten some amazing shots that I run small inside or don't run at all because they don't tell the story of the game. I won't run a shot just because it's an awesome shot. I'll try to, but when you're only getting 2-3 shots per game in for high school games, you have to be picky sometimes.

    As the letter writer points out, though, it seems there were several photos of the team's mistakes that ran. Outside of the fumble shot, I didn't see that many amazing shots of mistakes that needed to run. You run the dejection big, you run the fumble shot, you've told the story. Then you run good action shots, maybe the dejection from the field goal (I really like one of those, too). They had plenty to choose from. And there's another part of the story to be told, the part where they outgained the winning team by 200 yards. We're quick to say running the mistakes is telling the story to defend our decisions, and we're right, but we ignore that there are plenty of other moments that were part of the story. If you run six photos and four were mistakes, and of those only one was really awesome, then maybe you're focusing too much on one part of the story.

    And there are plenty of reasons that we run photos that aren't as good as others. Great celebration shot? Damn, kid was flashing a gang sign in the background. Awesome action shot from a girls basketball game? Too bad the girl on the floor has her legs spread wide. Great wrestling shot? Would run it if the guy didn't have his hand on the other's crotch. Why is it such a big deal to say you consider the subjects of the photo when you're picking art and deciding how to display it?
     
  2. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    JRoyal,

    Of all the sports photos ever considered for the paper, I think I might have considered how it would make a person in the photo feel maybe 2-3 times. And that might be because of a strange expression or clothing issue.

    Now, do I consider the reaction the public might have if you run a photo of wrestler seeming to grab another's crotch or a swimmer with a weird shadow or a football player flashing some kind of sign? Sure.

    And that would go into consideration to decide whether it's the best photo to use to illustrate the event.
     
  3. HanSenSE

    HanSenSE Well-Known Member

    Couple of years ago, we had a shot of a kid crying after they won the Section water polo title. My only thought was "boy, is he going to get grief the next day at school" and I told the shooter to put it in at three columns. The newsies even used the shot for a front-page skybox.

    Yes, there are times when you eliminate photos for obvious things, like crotch grabs in wrestling, hurdle shots in track, and other things mentioned above. But to spike it because the kid might feel bad? No. My job description says I'm the sports editor, not an amateur psychologist. Kid already knows he fumbled, so why gloss over it in photos or a story?

    And scarred for life? Puhleeze ... it's just a football game. If losing a high school football game is the worst thing that happens in one's life, then they're living life pretty well!
     
  4. JRoyal

    JRoyal Well-Known Member

    For those who apparently aren't reading what I'm saying, I never said you DON'T run the photo. If it tells the story, you run it. I'm asking, why is it wrong to consider the people in the shot when you decide how and where it's displayed?
     
  5. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Because it's irrelevant.
     
  6. JRoyal

    JRoyal Well-Known Member

    Why is it irrelevant? You yourself said earlier we should treat high school kids differently. So you say they should be handled differently because they're kids, but then say how they feel is irrelevant. Isn't that contradictory? It seems like you concede high school kids shouldn't be treated like pros, but then say we should treat them like they're pros.
     
  7. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    By differently, I mean that we should not criticize them for their performance on the field like we would a college or pro player.

    That does not mean that we should gloss over it or downplay good photos.
     
  8. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Those are different degrees of the same idea.
     
  9. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Are there many columnists out there ripping high school kids?
     
  10. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Why aren't there?
     
  11. HanSenSE

    HanSenSE Well-Known Member

    Exactly. My predecessor was into "this kid had a good game, so put his picture in, even if we have better pictures of other kids." Like one has something to do with the other?
     
  12. albert77

    albert77 Well-Known Member

    Maybe. But one of the things that absolutely drives me around the bend is when our photogs bring back wonderful art of a player who only played about two downs on special teams, and don't get anything good of the kid who ran for 150 yards and 3 TDs. How is that telling the story of the game?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page