Newspapers, WIAA at odds over photos, video

Then let the parents print the photos off the web with their handy dandy color printers and photo paper... but don't try to "sell" them like Clif's PhotoMart down the street, all in the name of making a buck off the kids.

Or better yet, let the parents buy up a bunch of copies of the paper and get the photos mounted in a nice frame along with the article.

If my tv station tried to sell video like this, our ass would be so sued.

I mean, really, if newspapers are so hard up that they have to start hocking non-news photos, why not do weddings and bar mitzvahs? That's probably much more profitable.

 

Extra pics that don't run in the newspaper, Oz? In limited use, and if posted along with a story, fine. If it's posted separately as a photo gallery and the thing is massive? Not journalism. Intended solely as a money-maker.

Hey, some parents would love to have unused B roll of Little Johnny's dunk. You guys could make yourselves a killing!

 

I never once mentioned extra pics, so you might want to drop that argument, because I'm certainly not making it. Just saying a pic or two that runs with the story should be considered editorial content. I don't believe in photo galleries. Run only what's needed, what are the best shots.

 

What would happen if the WIAA refused to credential any media outlet who refused to comply? (which they would be allowed to do) And, to make matters worse, they could also restrict cameras in the stands, making it impossible for a paper to park a shooter in the stands.

It could become any ugly situation.

 

I just wanted to take a timeout and say that is one of the most idiotic things I have heard (regarding photo galleries). Sorry if the newspaper doesn't have space for photo(s) ... why the hell should any other ones (and sometimes, yes, there can be more than one good photo from game that can't make it into the paper) online? Catch up with the times, dude.

 

First, thanks for the advice. Second, learn how to use the quote function.

 

Eh, at work and rushed that post (and didn't see I was posting it in the middle). Fixed.

 

One of the most idiotic things? Then you haven't been on this board much. I probably should have explained some before when I made that post, to tell you why I feel that way.

At my former stop, the sports desk was responsible for posting every story and every photo on the Web. We had to code each story with its headline and deck, code the bylines correctly, then add in photos and cutlines to make sure that the photos went along with the story's link. On a typical prep night, with all of us coding, it added another 30-45 minutes to our night after we just put out the day's papers. And this is a 35,000-plus AM paper that covers 120 high schools, three Division I colleges and area jucos. Not fun. Why our techs weren't responsible, I won't ever know.

At my current stop, which is roughly the same size, we're not responsible for it because the stories are already coded to go straight to the Internet, which is great. But now you would be asking our photogs, who log more hours than anyone else in the newsroom, to work even longer hours under a union contract.

You might not believe it, but I am caught up with the times. But I don't work for a 100,000-plus newspapers with all the resources we all dream about. At my two stops the past seven years -- both 35,000-plus AMs -- we didn't have the time and/or money to do slideshows on the Web. I would have loved that, given the great photogs that I've worked with at both stops, but it's simply not practical to do everywhere.

So go ahead, tell me that's one of the most idiotic things that you've heard ... again.

 

I rescind my statement. Of course, I had no idea on your history, but on face value that's the way it came off. I will say - getting back to the issue at hand - I'm not sure if any Wisconsin paper sells photos at this point off the web.

 

Understood, I should have put some context with it. I would love to do more multi-media things with our Web site, but with money being what it is and newsrooms never expanding, there's only so much some of us can do.

I understand the WIAA, but I would be pissed at having to pay $100 to shoot any postseason action. Should be free if they care to service the people they want to cater to, albeit via another source.

 

So which one of you yahoos is John Casper
http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070212/FON02/702120588/1310

Umm, no, you do it for the money.

 

JayFarrar, why do you hate capitalism? ;D

And for the record, I am NOT John Casper.