The Crying Game

It seems like our photographers come back from every big event -- NCAA tournament game, state championship, etc. -- with a photo of a player, cheerleader or fan of the losing team crying. They push hard for it, saying it's a powerful image. Are these compelling journalism or have they been used so much that they long ago became a cliche?

 

cliche

 

cliche

 

in case it wasn't mentioned earlier, cliche

 

It's cliche if you're done it a lot, which in your case it sounds like you have been. But after a year or two of not doing those shots, they can be relevant again.

 

Cliche.
Just like champagne/beer photos of the winning teams are cliche.

 

At the risk of being shouted down and ridiculed ... readers don't think like we do. They're not immersed in this like we are. They pick up the paper, read it, look at the photos and move on with their lives.

And a lot of them love shots like these. If you've got nothing better to run, what's the crime?

Sometimes we need to step back and realize we crossed a line a long time ago that often prevents us from seeing the product the way Average Joe Reader does.

 

Johnny Dangerously is dead on.

Emotion is always a powerful image. I'd want to see it before just dismissing the photo entirely just because you know someone is crying in it.

 

I have no problem, but if you're working for a small community paper be prepared to catch all kinds of grief for publishing the photos, especially if it's a kid.
For some reason, people seem to think crying photos are embarassing to the subject, as if all their friends are going to make fun of them or as if you put in the cutline "Here's Johnny's home phone number. Be sure to call him at 3 a.m. and tell him what a baby he is."
Don't avoid running the photo because you're worried about getting that kind of reaction, but don't be surprised when you get it.

 

Was I the only wondering how the cinematic wonder that is hidden penises were part of the Journalism Only board when I saw the thread title?

 

Any kind of reaction shot has to be pretty astounding to impress me (or the action shots have to be pretty bad). At a lot of papers, they're obligatory on a big game, but they pretty much all look the same. It's kind of like "the money shot" in a porn film. Why is this necessary? Does it give fans "a sense of closure?"

 

Good point. Sometimes those get the community screaming, and not in a good way.

Of course, these are usually the same fucktards who ask the school boards why the teachers can't just "do more with less" in tough times. But why give them something else to bitch about?