| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Strangest story yet
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
 |
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:53 AM on 07.14.08 |
->> So I realize in this cost cutting, job annihilation time in newspapers we've seen some weird stuff but this story was one of the strangest I've seen yet. it was in our sunday paper....whatcha think?
http://www.newsobserver.com/2766/story/1140023.html |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
 |
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 10:46 AM on 07.14.08 |
->> I dunno. Film critics have their place I suppose (maybe in academia), but most of the time I don't agree with them. It's someone picking apart something that is supposed to be entertaining.
It's like a lab guy explaining to me in two paragraphs why a Twinkie tastes good...or is gonna kill me. Kinda takes the fun out of it either way. |
|
Aaron Rhoads, Photographer
 |
McComb | MS | USA | Posted: 10:53 AM on 07.14.08 |
->> Dunno. How bad are things going to get? I'm thinking, "The Waltons."
Or the "Dark Ages."
What jobs are the least important? Movie critics. Celeb reporters. Sports analyst. |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
 |
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 10:55 AM on 07.14.08 |
->> Since the day film makers started adding quotes from positive reviews to trailers and print ads as a form of endorcement, the general public started viewing stage and film critics with - well, a more critical eye.
Back when I actually gave a damn about such things, I would make a point of writing down the names of critics who threw random praise at true garbage. I also noted those critics to were willing to devote a paragraph of deconstruction that encouraged readers to lend their audience to local "art house" theaters and their faire.
TV critics are a whole 'nother animal, but the pattern is the same. Siskel and Ebert become so popular for several reasons. They were openly enthusiastic about the medium. They not only aired their disagreements, but defended them vigorously, giving the viewers distinctly different yet valid POV regarding a film.
While the Internet is indeed to blame for a great many things, I believe that criticism of the arts has been in decline for a long time. The economy finally forced the publishers' hands. And like all other things "on the Web," the explosion of online critics and blogs will reach a saturation point. Many will get bored or realize that nobody is listening, while others become relatively famous and/or notorious for their quality insights and merciless pans. As in all other endeavors in life, the cream always rises to the top.
The next section to go will be "Home and Garden". |
|
Stan Gilliland, Photographer
 |
Cary | NC | USA | Posted: 11:06 AM on 07.14.08 |
| ->> Maybe I am wrong, but I think Chuck may have been pointing out the similarity between what is happening to the film critics and what is perceived to be happening to photojournalists, and how both groups have responded to trends in the industry. |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 11:21 AM on 07.14.08 |
->> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90072099
"Talk of the Nation, April 30, 2008 ·
Web sites such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are creating serious competition for professional critics. The sites distill and aggregate professional reviews and provide a forum for users to submit their own comments and ratings. Today, there are fewer and fewer paid critics — but more and more reviews..." |
|
Margaret Bowles, Photographer
 |
Houston | TX | | Posted: 11:45 AM on 07.14.08 |
->> I copied this quote from Chuck's article:
"I think movie companies and publicists are much happier with just the young critic who's making $125 to write a capsule review who is just thrilled to be invited to a screening and, you know, maybe get a hat and a T-shirt and just write 250 words of praise," Grant says.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Stan is right, the article points out that it isn't just the photography business that is suffering. It's all part of the dumbing down process. Does the average joe really care about a well composed photograph or is he just glancing at the photo quickly to see if there's sex, blood or his own face in it? Does the average joe really care to read an insightful, thought-provoking review of a movie or book or is he just interested in finding out if there's enough violence, sex, or whatever else floats his boat?
There is certainly a place in a civilized society for well-composed, intelligent criticisms and well-composed, intelligent photographs, but perhaps it's just not important in today's media for the masses. Why pay the price for quality when the average reader can't discern the difference and doesn't care?
Interesting article, Chuck. |
|
Jon Gardiner, Photographer
 |
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:58 PM on 07.14.08 |
->> Anyone see "Idiocracy?" by Mike Judge (you know, the guy who brought us "Beavis & Butt-head" and "King of the Hill") It's not a real good film, but does dumb-down to an extreme what seems to be the fate of such a downward spiral of societal trends in the United States.
from a commercial in the film:
"Comin' up next on The Violence Channel: An all-new "Ow, My Balls!"
Hey, does that count s a review? Where's my $125?
Later,
J |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:01 PM on 07.14.08 |
->> Jon,
We're living in the idiocracy now. When George Carlin died a few weeks ago NBC replayed an early (perhaps the first episode) Saturday Night Live with Carlin hosting. One of the segments was a fake commercial for a razor with five blades (This was in the days of the first twin-blad razors.) The tag line was something like, "...because you'll believe anything." At the time, a five-blade razor was so obviously ridiculous that the bit was funny.
Did I say ridiculous?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillette_Fusion
--Mark |
|
Allen Hubbard, Photographer
 |
Spokane | WA | USA | Posted: 5:16 AM on 07.15.08 |
->> "There is certainly a place in a civilized society for well-composed, intelligent criticisms and well-composed, intelligent photographs, but perhaps it's just not important in today's media for the masses. Why pay the price for quality when the average reader can't discern the difference and doesn't care?"
Margaret, I think you nailed the whole thing right there.
In the world today there are fewer and fewer who really take the time to care. Information and photos are so common place that people don't really care about the difference if the info is well written or the photo is well composed or exposed. |
|
Rainier Ehrhardt, Photographer
 |
Augusta | GA | USA | Posted: 9:20 AM on 07.15.08 |
->> "Information and photos are so common place that people don't really care about the difference if the info is well written or the photo is well composed or exposed."
Which is why I fear for this industry everyday. The only thing I can hope for is a societal shift to more quality after some sort of backlash against widespread junk. Even then, after such a shake up, there'll be a lot less of us, with the cream rising to the top.
Sometimes I feel like all we can do is keep making great images and hope for the best. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
 |
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 11:02 AM on 07.15.08 |
->> The underlying attitude of the consumer - willing to settle for mediocrity if the price is low enough - spreads far beyond the media. The plethora of Wal-Marts, low grade home construction, "home improvement" centers, and fast food all speak to that. The average consumer rarely takes the time and effort to understand the difference between high quality and sub-par - particularly when the product appears very similar on the surface...and that's for tangible goods. When you take this into the artistic realm, the universe of people that (1) even care about the subject and (2) are interested enough to then care about quality, gets pretty small relative to say those following the sports page.
Accordingly, when such things as film critics are cut, it deeply affects a very small portion of the readership and the rest barely care - if they notice at all. This results in a greater cost savings than potential loss in revenue - which would be mainly subscription as I don't see that the theaters would stop advertising.
I would disagree with Dave's prediction that Home and Garden is next. My local paper has tons of ads from home improvement, flooring, paint, landscape and similar enterprises. This gets tied to the home and garden section, so I would expect to see a greater ad drop off if that section were dropped. |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
|
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 1:49 PM on 07.15.08 |
->> Mark you may be right, but I suspect that H&G writers could be replaced with set advertorial pieces. Let's face it: ANY section that isn't hard news is a candidate for the type of downsizing the critics are going through right now.
As for the "Walmarting" of the general public, I expect this to get MUCH worse, as the economy swishes deeper down the toilet. People are struggling to survive, and at the same time being bombarded with information from all directions. Something has to give, and the daily newspaper is at the top of the list. Why? because it costs money every month, and it's the one news source that requires the most work - I have to go get the paper off the porch; I have to turn the page; I have to throw it away when I'm done. News off the Web gets thrown in my face whether I'm looking for it or not. The "Idiot Box" (as my Dad always called TV) is but a click of the remote away, and I don't even have to actively watch it - I can just listen if I want - and I can eat my meals with two hands while I'm at it. Combined with that mildly painful reminder of a monthly bill, and it's just one more expense that's too easy to rationalize doing without.
20 years ago, the thought of going a single day without reading the OC Register from front to back was unfathomable. Today? I haven't picked one up in the past 5 years unless it was laying on at table at Carl's Jr.
I think a lot of our members' take on viewer submitted photos and video on TV is off the mark as well. People don't look at that kind of stuff with an eye on quality. Viewer submissions are a form of interactive media; they have an extra "that could have been me" feel to them. They provide the possibility that you just might know the person who submitted the footage, or better yet, that YOU could have submitted it if you'd just remembered to keep your Cam handy; just one more avenue for Warhol's 15 minutes.
While I don't think print media will die entirely, I will make a prediction that very soon, the salaried reporter or photographer will become a rare animal. He/she will be replaced by independent content submitters, working from home, and being paid automatically when their story or photo gets picked up. Content and layout will largely become an automated process, with only final layout and approval being made by a live body. In short: the daily will become like an automated web portal, generated by RSS feeds. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 2:17 PM on 07.15.08 |
->> Dave,
Have to agree with the "advertorial" comment. The weekly in the town that I moved from last year began doing that about three years ago. They run an inordinate amount of copy straight from press releases. And the H&G section is very well suited to such prepackaged content. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
SB-900 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $499.95 |
Notes:
The SB-900 i-TTL Speedlight leads the Nikon Creative Lighting System delivering the portability, power and versatility to support any photographer's creative lighting imagination. SportsShooter.com users should call 866-726-9463 to get the special SportsShooter price.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|