Need an unbiased opinion -- is this really where we're headed?

I understand that everyone's chasing dollars with their web sites. I know that revenues and circ. numbers are down across the board, and editors and publishers are feeling more heat than ever before.

But this was the lead photo gallery in the Tallahassee Democrat today. (It gets interesting after photo 8 or so ... 22's a classic)

http://tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=CD&Dato=20080526&Kategori=PHOTOS03&Lopenr=805260801&Ref=PH

It's not a great paper by any means. But it is a daily paper with a decent circulation, and it's obviously in a capital city. Having said that, I just can't believe this event was photographed by a staffer, and that these 40 pictures were deemed worthy of publication -- in a very high-profile location -- of a mid-sized paper's Web site.

I'm generally not a prude. But do we really need Girls Gone Wild on our daily paper's Web site? And if we do, what does that say about this profession?

I think it's embarrassing, but maybe I'm wrong. I was curious what others might think -- and if other papers are doing anything similar.

 

To be honest, I thought before clicking the link that I would be looking at a reader's dog wearing a homemade sweater. This is much, much better IMO.

But no, you won't see more papers going the T&A route. We're a family newspaper, dammit.

But if you're in a party town, it's probably smart to cover parties.

 

I don't know much about the area. Is this White Trash Bash a huge deal down there? If it's a major thing, then I guess I can understand some coverage. Thirty nine photos seems a bit like overkill, though. Especially since none of them are particularly compelling. People getting drunk on a beach in Florida? That only happens about 365 days out of the year.

 

You just helped them get a few more clicks, so yeah, it works just fine. There was nothing obsene (save for the flag shots, imo). And those people will now push ad revs to a higher level.

Papers aren't always high society. A large No. of people went to that event. Sure we don't like the KKK, but that doesn't mean a huge gathering of them isn't news.

 

The little "buy this photo" link is probably the main reason for this deal for the staffer being there. I think it's unnecessary to cover it, but what if something happens? I think it's better to play it safe and be there -- whether you use the photos or not -- than to blow it off and miss something heinous happening. And once you're there, why not try to make some coin?

I wouldn't run them in the newspaper, though. At least not the revealing pictures.

 

A little surprising maybe, but not shocking at all. One of our paper's most popular Web galleries was a huge "Redneck Bash" or something out in the middle of nowhere.

It didn't have the close-ups of attractive young girls in bikinis (unfortunately), but it did have shots of beer cans and stuff like that. This gallery is kinda like a Facebook album.

I was entertained by the photographer's cut lines in that gallery. Seems like he wrote some of them tongue-in-cheek. Funny stuff.

 

I have a hat in the garage that holds two beers.

 

I didn't even notice there were cutlines.

 

Get out your confederate flag and party, sir.

 

What are cutlines?

 

I think it's a type of breakfast sausage.

 

Not so much. Most jurisdictions in Florida have open-container laws that obviously include beaches (which are public land in Florida, unlike some other states).

Never heard of the WTB, but I've managed to avoid being sentenced to life in the Panhandle.

The management was incorrect to make a photo gallery from this, much less assign a photographer in the first place. It's pandering masquerading as journalism. There's a news angle to this, but it looks like that was not documented in the gallery. Of course, they did the same thing last year. Then again, it's Gannett.

You don't even shoot the pics to resell them. That's community-journalism thinking. Then again, it's Gannett.