John Harrington, Photographer
 |
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 4:07 AM on 12.04.09 |
->> Gene -
Since this is Sportsshooter, and all about photographers and photography, I would think it inappropriate to discount the newspaper because of the owners, when you know nothing about the photographers who will likely be affected.
I am guessing that if 40% of the writers/reporters were being cut, it wouldn't even get a mention here, but since it is clear that some of the 10 or so photographers on staff will be affected, it warrants a mention, so again we're really only talking about the photo department.
I can tell you a bit about the photographers there - their political perspectives not only cover all sides (yes, there are, arguably "liberal" photographers that are staff there), however - and this is critical, those photographers that might have a liberal political philosophy have never displayed that perspective in their photography - the hallmark of a true professional. Now, an editor might choose a photo from an assignment that takes a tact, but, well, that happens regardless of who the owners are - from the Washington Post to USA Today. That editing does not fall on the photographer's shoulders.
Yes yes, it's easy to just be inappropriate and label it derogatorily calling it a "moonie" paper, when "moonie" is a pejorative - the organization is the Unification Church. Frankly, when there have been news stories about The Church, the paper has covered those stories using AP wire stories - expressly to use as neutral a source as possible.
Lastly, I will commend you on your reflection that it's "Sad news when our nation's capital cannot support a second opinion." I agree. There are, however, other options - the Washington Examiner publishes here, however I doubt that the Washington Post sees the Examiner as a real challenger, yet on many fronts, they are. Further, The Washington Times will still publish, but with a different focus and approach, at least that's the position, for now. |
|
