The phase out of photographers at some of our cheaper examples of journalism

Ours has started passing along edicts from the top that reporters should also be photographers and I know that some of the cheaperass papers in our family have been doing this for years...forcing gamers to be nothing but what the coach says because you can't do accurate stats and shoot pictures. Not really. Close, but not really.

And you shouldn't have to.

So besides CNHI, which other companies are pushing this now as the latest creative excuse to cut personnel?

 

And take some video while your at it, plus Tweet, Facebook, blog, Cover It Live and anything internets (sic) related.

 

Team A beat Team B 21-7. Joe Blow scored three touchdowns.
Or wait, I didn't get that in my notes. Was busy blogging about that last photo I shot.

 

We've been doing it for the good part of a year. Football is nearly impossible. Basketball means the only stats you're getting are from the book or coach. Everything else is pretty easy to do.
But the quality of photo is not nearly as good as it should be.

 

Exactly.

In the years of film in the tank, I shot 3200 speed shit in b/w from midcourt. It was grainy as hell but I did it and kept some decent stats...scoring and rebounding. And of course, the photos were shitty like you'd expect from trying to do it on the cheap.

But let's be honest. Most newspaper companies don't give a shit if there's quality journalism or not in the paper, regardless of what their company slogans say.

 

What a joke. New motto: Do it all and do it all poorly.

 

Our paper is on Facebook and Twitter now, which I consider a complete waste. For one, if we are going to promo something for the next day then way not do it on our web site? Or better yet post it. Let's do a lot of things poorly and wonder why no one cares about the product. How 'bout we worry about a couple of things and do them well, like putting out a decent product?

 

The first paper I worked at, I didn't do photos. All three since then (plus four years as FT freelancer) I've done stories, plus pics and layout. I admit my photos aren't as good as a dedicated good FT photog, and my notes aren't as complete as someone just writing, but IMO they are both pretty decent. It is a compromise, but having done it for 10 years now I've gotten used to it. For me at least, it's not that big of a deal. I've actually wondered why more don't combine reporting with photography.

 

Did it for years as well (oooh, 3200 B&W!). I don't do it anymore, but would love to try with the digitals. I laugh seeing photogs rip off 30 frames of one play, then go back to the office and say they got the shot. The old guys, like me, remember the one-and-done of film.
As for stats, what do you need? Basketball: points, rebounds, steals, assists, blocks, threes, FTs and turnovers can be done with a camera in hand. Football: detail the play, down&distance, and the tackler(s); tally yardage and other stats during clock stoppages. I assure you that many, many people worked this way for years.
For me, even the worst of games flew by and I wrote better copy (IMO) because I was focused on the event. Without the camera, people are walking up to you to talk ('cause you're not working, right?), or the photog wants to show you the shot they got, or ... look a bird ... What did I miss?

 

Diego, you're not helping.

The fact is, if you try to do two jobs at once, you'll do well at neither.

 

I had to shoot and write for a small Gatehouse paper.

 

Because people DONT GO to your paper every day. But they do go to Twitter, and Facebook. It drives numbers, people get click happy, they start to realize your web presence.

This is why newspapers are in such a mess right now. Its a one-track mind.

Our papers aren't solely print and Web Site entities anymore. You have to remember Twitter and Facebook and mobile sites are staples of media companies now.

And you should be promoting things on your site. But that's not the point.