SportsShooter.com - Are sports shooters journalists?

	Dallas \| TX \| US \| Posted: 12:01 AM on 03.19.10
	->> " ... I really believe that sports is not "pure journalism" like the rest of the newsroom." Man that's funny. Thanks. - gerry -

Chuck Liddy, Photographer

Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:14 AM on 03.19.10

->> just reread your post after the last couple of comments...
"sports is not "pure journalism" like the rest of the newsroom."
just to be honest with you you're probably really, really fortunate that you don't work for a newspaper....because if you truly believe your comment you'd be sent packing and wouldn't have a job.
of course you are probably trying to be an "agent provocateur" and get everyone riled up. hey! it worked!!!!!

Mark Peters, Photographer

Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:34 AM on 03.19.10

->> From Merriam-Webster online:

Main Entry: jour·nal·ism
Pronunciation: ˈjər-nə-ˌli-zəm
Function: noun
Date: 1828

1 a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : the public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2 a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest

Main Entry: pho·to·jour·nal·ism
Pronunciation: ˌfō-tō-ˈjər-nə-ˌli-zəm
Function: noun
Date: 1938

: journalism in which written copy is subordinate to pictorial usually photographic presentation of news stories or in which a high proportion of pictorial presentation is used; broadly : news photography

— pho·to·jour·nal·ist -nə-list noun

— pho·to·jour·nal·is·tic -ˌjər-nə-ˈlis-tik adjective

I'm missing the part where there is a limit on subject matter to qualify.

Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer

Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 1:00 AM on 03.19.10

->> All you have to do on this subject is consider the source. From the man's own bio:

"Stanley Leary converted his hobby of people watching and his compassion for people into a career. Leary honed his skills at local papers, colleges and the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention."

When I was a wee lad at Loyola College and my adviser advised that they were cutting the photojournalism program, but I could just take communications classes and some photo on the side, it was the same, I knew he had no idea of photojournalism. I bailed and found some place that did. Off to Mizzou I went.

I think the author of this topic falls into the same general category. If you just don't know, well, you don't know. True, there are "sports photographers" who are not sports photojournalists. Maybe they are just PR photographer for Chick-Fil-A or something, but to make this statement shows a true lack of understanding and a touch of elitism:

"I may get blasted for this, but I really believe that sports is not "pure journalism" like the rest of the newsroom."

It is the old "I am real news, you are just sports" thing. Brotha Stan, you are correct, maybe YOU aren't a true journalist, judging by your images, but sports is "pure journalism" just like any other "journalism" you might want to portray.

Derek Montgomery, Photographer

Duluth | MN | USA | Posted: 1:15 AM on 03.19.10

->> Stanley,

Without a doubt, sports is journalism like the rest of the newsroom. Hockey here in Minnesota is tantamount to a religion. When teams from Duluth make it to state, they sometimes bring half the community. Schools let out early, multiple fan buses travel 2.5 hours south to Minneapolis, kids come together to cheer their teams, businesses put up signs of support outside their stores... sports go well beyond what happens on the court, field or rink.

The same can be said for college and professional teams. Have you ever been to Lambeau Field in Green Bay? For a few months out of the year, the town and the state come together around that team. Sports are so much more than just games... they are often focal points for communities and one of the few things left that an entire community can come together around.

Tami Chappell, Photographer, Photo Editor

Atlanta | Ga | USA | Posted: 2:05 AM on 03.19.10

->> Stan
I've known you a number of years so I am surprised at your statement. Yes, sports is as much a part of photojournalism as is hunting for features.
But I wanted to make the point that prior to high speed access we used that funny thing called a phone line. Eventually yes we paid to have those installed in darkrooms but there were many "courtesy" lines available. I agree with Chuck though. Nobody is asking for anything free just a reasonable rate. Last year covering the NCAA I managed to get a signal... albeit slow signal over my cell line. But I watched several photographers have to leave the arena to get a signal to transmit and yes go back through security just to come back in. While the reporters NEVER with their 12 dollar wifi never leave their seat.

Nic Coury, Photographer

Monterey | CA | | Posted: 3:51 AM on 03.19.10

->> On the free thing, everyone else said it well.

It's like Facebook offering their free services for, oh, 10 years now almost, and then after they're very well established, asking for all of those millions of members to pay. I don't think so.

On the sports as not journalism thing. Everyone else made valid points. And yes, a football game may not be in the same league as a presidential assassination, but like Green Bay or, oh, how about the sex scandal of the most popular figure in contemporary golf leaving the game for many months? That's a story if I've ever heard it.

David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Toledo \| OH \| USA \| Posted: 8:27 AM on 03.19.10
	->> "pure journalism" is either a cynical oxymoron or a shibboleth put forward by self serving members of a profession that has never had any standards for its members, like board certification or a bar or licensing exam. Kinda like parsing the difference between gumbo and Bouillabaisse. Pretty much the same soup as you sit down to eat.........

Mark Sobhani, Photographer

San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 9:18 AM on 03.19.10

->> "I really believe that sports is not "pure journalism" like the rest of the newsroom."

The 'rest of the newsroom' in a lot of places includes:
- pet of the week
- advertorial
- head shots
- ribbon cuttings
- editors saying "We need some sort of feature art to fill this hole. Anything will do!"
- self-serving assignments covering newspaper sponsored events.
- assignments generated by the advertising/marketing departments.

Is this what you meant by "pure journalism?"

Frank Niemeir, Photographer

Woodstock | GA | usa | Posted: 9:33 AM on 03.19.10

->> I think Stanley has a legit question and I'm sorry for the name calling. I've seen Terry Pendleton walk off the field during a baseball game. I've seen Mike Tyson bite off a piece of Evander Holyfield's ear. I've been involved in basketball and baseball games that have had their start times moved to accommodate television, from a day game to a night game. I've been involved in games where television is let on the field and stills are not. How objective is that? What about tv timeouts for football and basketball? Is there a timeout allowed for the local fire department? Ever seen the tv guy run down the third base line following the home run hitter? Are all the other credentialed photographers allowed to do the same? Same during this March Madness -- television allowed on the court after the game, but not the stills. TV on the golf course and stills not? Not being allowed to shoot until the swing is complete and the ball is hit -- what if you were told you couldn't shoot until the speech was finished? Interesting fodder.

Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer

	McAllen \| TX \| USA \| Posted: 9:37 AM on 03.19.10
	->> "Kinda like parsing the difference between gumbo and Bouillabaisse. Pretty much the same soup as you sit down to eat..." Pretty much the same soup UNTIL you sit down to eat...

G.J. McCarthy, Photographer

Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 9:52 AM on 03.19.10

->> Hey Frank:

Not sure I totally get the point you're trying to make. I think I might see what you're getting at with the TV timeout note, but the Tyson ear bite? The Pendleton thing?? Confused.

No one is arguing that major sports isn't about The Almighty Dollar. Making life difficult for us (newspaper folks) with deadlines via TV timeouts and the like isn't anything new. But the discrepancy in how much the NCAA (and other organizations) charge for bandwidth (in the day and age the very nature of how we get our jobs done) seems a little harsh. I for one would love to see a breakdown of why they think we need to pay more. Seriously -- a rational (hell, I'd take an irrational) explanation would be great ... but I don't think we'll ever really see one.

And name calling? Leary brought it upon himself ... yet again.

Hey Stan -- next time you're in town for that conference in Fort Worth, let me know. I'll hook you up with some of our sports beat writers (not columnists) so you can watch just how hard they work. I'm being serious. Why not spend a couple of weeks on the road with Mike Heika (Stars) or Eddie Sefko (Mavs) and tell me if you think their job is any less important to the daily grind here in Dallas.

Cheers,

- gerry -

G.J. McCarthy, Photographer

	Dallas \| TX \| US \| Posted: 9:55 AM on 03.19.10
	->> Oh, and Stan, in case you were only referring to sports "shooters" with your comment. I'll give you a dollar if you say that to DeLuca (or John Rhodes, Michael Ainsworth, Vernon Bryant, Tom Fox, etc.) with a straight face.

Stanley Leary, Photographer

Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 10:06 AM on 03.19.10

->> I thought I had to put it this way I felt to get some responses. Maybe not the best way to approach the subject I must admit.

While $300 is a high figure, what I wanted to address was not the costs, but those who might be arguing they should have this provided for free.

If you are willing to pay the going fare rate for the service, then I am not questioning your ethics.

I just know from experience that many people yell at volunteers wanting their stats and quotes after games. They complain about the free food. For me this started to sound a lot like one of those conversations.

If you believe that as a journalists you should have these things provided for you--then in my opinion you make your coverage suspect. I would then say you would not be a true journalist.

I know Chuck and Tami have always been "pure journalists." I have watched how they work. My comments are not to say all Sports Shooters are not journalists. My point was to make people think about our ethics.

If the NCAA is only passing along true costs, then that is just the costs of business. I do think if they are marking this up I question their ethics as well.

G.J. McCarthy, Photographer

Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 10:38 AM on 03.19.10

->> Ok Stan, to make sure I understand the last point you made ...

Because you don't know me, you've not watched how I "work" -- like you have Chuck or Tami -- then in your eyes, my ethics might be suspect because, say, in the past I've complained about the quality of facilities at a sporting event; things like available Internet (for a fee or free), food, quickness of stats and rosters, etc.

That sound about right?

- gerry -

Stew Milne, Photographer

	Providence \| RI \| USA \| Posted: 10:50 AM on 03.19.10
	->> Dig, dig, dig..... -sM "Pure photojournalist, journalist, sports photographer, etc, etc, etc"

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Jackson \| WY \| USA \| Posted: 11:27 AM on 03.19.10
	->> Stanley - in your rationale, is it unethical for journalists & photojournalists to even expect to get into the event for free?

Bryan Littel, Photographer

Oaklyn | NJ | USA | Posted: 11:35 AM on 03.19.10

->> Stan - assuming a venue has an expensive, blazing fast connection - say, a T3 line on the high end of the cost scale - it's going to run about $500/day... assuming the venue passes the entire cost of that on to the NCAA.

I'm pretty sure you can figure out how many photographers' fees it'll take to cover that.

Beyond that, say I go over to the Wachovia Center in Philly: if I'm covering the Sixers or Flyers or Wings or virtually any other sports event held there, I can connect to their network to send my photos - the venue has opted to provide that service as a courtesy, whatever their reasons. But if the NCAA tournament comes to town, I suddenly have to fork over $350 per day, and if I complain, I'm the problem?

The logic isn't there.

Mark Sobhani, Photographer

San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 11:37 AM on 03.19.10

->> Stanley

I went back and reread "The NCAA Vampires are back... data line fees" -- all 50 posts. I can't find one comment or response where someone is demanding something for free. The nearest I found was some people's disdain for the practice of taking something normally offered for free, then charging what's considered an exorbitant fee for it.

In fact, that was one of the few posts I've read here that reached it's limit without degrading into a pissing match. That post is a great example of what many people like about this site — an opportunity to discuss a specific issue that affects many photographers. Lots of people offered their experience and possible solutions.

To point at that post as the nexus of your (this) post, I think, is a bit misguided.

Mike Anzaldi, Photographer

Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 12:01 PM on 03.19.10

->> i feel bad for you stanley. i don't believe your question deserves name calling and character bashing. you not only make a quality point, but a classic and obvious point. maybe it's not obvious to this community, but it is to the general public. just depends on who you ask. in this case, you asked the wrong group. many people make their living taking pictures of games that could never possibly have any effect on the lives of their readers. pro and college sports are entertainment, period. with few exceptions, the outcome of the game is not generally "newsworthy". the only interesting point to me so far here is from derek montgomery who points out that some games or some sport seasons are truly the news of the community. even here in chicago, it couldn't matter less to the community whether the cubs win or lose when they play the 14th out of 25 regular season games against the st. louis cardinals. the game should still be covered and photographed, absolutely. but, it could be missed and it wouldn't be missed- which brings us to why someone would dare ask if a sports shooter is a journalist...and why a sports shooter might be offended by the question.

i don't think he is diminishing the importance of the photographer- even in sports. sounds like the debate that stanley is trying to have is about language. it's a good debate, just a bad crowd. would you call a sideline photographer at the little league game a journalist? is the wedding snapper a journalist? how about the event photographer? journalists certainly shoot all of these occasions. some photographers even offer to shoot these in a "journalism" style. most here are probably photojournalists. they shoot news, sports, whatever...and probably do it as an objective observer whose purpose is to watch and report. but, take brad mangin for example. is brad always shooting as a journalist? i would argue no. sometimes brad might have an assignment where he is asked to document a baseball game. sounds like sports journalism to me. sometimes brad might not have an assignment, but still turns up at the stadium to make some stock images of some athletes. i might argue that a day like that isn't much different than being a team photographer. no more journalism than taking pictures of bears in the wild.

anyway, i think more than diminishing the careers of the members here, the idea was probably to debate the term "journalist".
stanley, to answer your question: i think some sports shooters are journalists, and some are not. good question though.

Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant

	Boise \| ID \| US \| Posted: 12:45 PM on 03.19.10
	->> Title: "Are sports shooters journalists?" First thought: "Wow, that's professional!" After reading post: "That's just a guy trying to cause controversy by not using his brain." Could you go waste space on photo.net instead? Thanks.

Chuck Liddy, Photographer

	Durham \| NC \| USA \| Posted: 1:00 PM on 03.19.10
	->> I feel bad for stanley also......

Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer

McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 1:11 PM on 03.19.10

->> "...the outcome of the game is not generally "newsworthy"'

To you, perhaps. To millions of people out there the coverage and outcomes of sporting events is a major part of their lives, just as there are millions that really do care about the Oscars and such like.

Your definitions of what is, or is not, news is only the deciding factor in the publications and web sites that you read or frequent.

It does seem amusing that the original questioner bothers to ask such things on a web site designed to appeal to photographers that are seriously interested in sports photojournalism.

Jason Orth, Photographer

Lincoln | NE | USA | Posted: 1:50 PM on 03.19.10

->> "...the outcome of the game is not generally "newsworthy"

To further Jim's point: Ask that to the citizens of my town, being asked to vote on a 100+ million dollar project to build a new house for a losing (mens) basketball team.

I would also suggest to ask any business owner in Lincoln, Nebraska how things went during the Callahan vs. Pelini years.

Speaking first hand, the outcome of a game is a HUGE business concern that has effects on a community, through tax revenues and or job creation/loss. And yes, in some markets, one game is make or break for some businesses.

Maybe in larger cities with more revenue streams it's not as important, but here...sports are a major economic and cultural influence, both newsworthy.

BTTOT: I didn't get anything about demanding freebies, it was that the NCAA is gouging news outlets.

As Bert said, the choice was clear: pay or don't.

To me (and only me) I see as a money-grab and more as an attempt to squeeze out other outlets in an attempt to limit coverage to NCAA's portals. For the economic reasons mentioned earlier, I would have a LOT of trouble with that one-sidedness, and since it affects the public, yes...it is news. Maybe that's too much and I need to take off my tinfoil hat.

Mike Ullery, Photographer, Photo Editor

Piqua | OH | USA | Posted: 1:54 PM on 03.19.10

->> "...the outcome of the game is not generally newsworthy"

An interesting observation considering the NCAA basketball tournament is probably the most followed tournament, (as opposed to a single game), in the country.

People who don't follow sports at any other time tend to get caught up in the NCAA tournament - just because others at the office, or church, or wherever are following it.

The fees for Internet connection are, to me, highway robbery. It is the same thing as hotels that charge $79 per room, year around, but let a big event come to town and the same room, with the same services suddenly costs $279 a night.

They do it because...they can.

Jason Heffran, Photographer

Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 2:26 PM on 03.19.10

->> Pitt is going to still have free internet access during round 1 & 2 of the women's tournament. All you need is the logon password. If you've been there before, you do. It's the same one used during the regular season.

Otherwise, I suppose that the NCAA fee would apply? Not sure how that would be handled.

This is straight from someone in their department. And, being the women's tournament - I am not sure if the fee even applies.

Could be irrelevant. Just passing along some info I was privy to.

David Manning, Photographer

	Athens \| GA \| \| Posted: 2:32 PM on 03.19.10
	->> Point end of the lens goes toward the field, right?

Butch Miller, Photographer

Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 3:02 PM on 03.19.10

->> While this may be the Sports Shooter home of reference ... I would like to remind the OP that many of us here are photojournalists first and foremost, that happen to also shoot sports ....

So it is understandable to take offense when our integrity is questioned ...

Is the result of a sporting event worthy of journalistic classification? Maybe not in the purest sense ... but what is pure journalism? .... for me "News" has always been new information shared with my readers ... I do not differentiate my duties based upon subject matter ... it's all part of the job and treated equally ... I work sporting events because my readers have an interest and invest directly in my efforts to provide them content ... or I wouldn't be there in the first place.

As far as ethics are concerned in whether I would partake in refreshments or services offered by the host .... if what I receive is provided for all members of the media, I gladly accept a soda and sandwich or the momentary use of the host's bandwidth to transmit my images ....

On the other hand, if a host were to offer me prime rib in order to influence my views ... while offering all others bologna on white bread ... no thank you ....

Before I would pay the NCAA $300+ for internet access ... I'd crawl on my belly through razor blades to deliver my files ... or at least find an alternate more reasonable means ....

That much gouging is even too high for SI, AP or Reuters ... not that they can't afford it ... it's just the principle ... a fee is fine ... that's way over the line unreasonable ... It's one thing to cover costs, It's quite another to pull a stunt like this ...

Darren Whitley, Photographer

Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 3:32 PM on 03.19.10

->> This is conjecture on my part, but I think what Stanley is trying to question is whether real journalism can happen when the environment is controlled and access is limited to the NCAA's television partner. That's valid, but the answer is yes real journalism can happen in a NCAA-sanitized event.

I also think there's a certain criticism he's making of society's obsession with sports. There's just an awful lot of stuff he didn't explain.

My question is whether Stanley has taken even one journalism class? That might help him clarify what journalism is.

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor

	San Jose \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 4:36 PM on 03.19.10
	->> Stanley, As you well know, some sports photography is a sub-set of journalism. Those photographers shooting sports using journalistic ethics are journalists. Those sports photographers who are shooting as public relations or advertising photographers or as T&I shooters are not journalists. It all depends on what one is doing at the time. --Mark

Mike Anzaldi, Photographer

	Oak Park \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 6:22 PM on 03.19.10
	->> well said mark: "It all depends on what one is doing at the time." i think that comprehensively answers that question.

Nhat V. Meyer, Photographer

San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 5:56 PM on 03.20.10

->> HP Pavilion (where there are first and second rounds this year) they normally provide free wireless - which is awesome - they see that as a cost of doing business, providing the media a means to transmit information about THEIR event. However we also PAY a monthly fee (not to the arena but to a service provider) for a hard line. Both of those were turned off. I don't know how it's legal to turn off a line that we pay separately for? Seriously is that legal?

This is my main issue with the ncaa; that ways to transmit already exist - as Chuck mentioned earlier. If the arena had 0 internet access then I would understand their rationale (not the high fee though). But to literally turn-off all access and force us to pay an inflated sum is criminal to me.

Like I said in the other post, I don't mind paying for internet access but the fee has to be reasonable. Sorry to use this example a second time - but in Vancouver they charged $500 for 30 days of access - that comes out to about $16 a day - very reasonable - and they went in and actually had to put in a ton of hard-lines that were not there before. Granted I only used it for about 18 days but that's still about $27 a day - more than 85% less than the ncaa charges (the ncaa is basically charging $175 per day - assuming you are able to cover both days of course).

And again, this is not even my money - it's the general principle about it. And we all know how newspapers budgets are these days, very tough for everyone, so a paper might say - we have a budget of $1,200 to send someone to one of the rounds... but if you have to add $350 to transmit images that might be a deal breaker for some papers, that's more than a quarter of the budget!

On Thursday we had great luck using our Verizon cards on deadline, had to walk upstairs, kinda outside, but I had three bars and it took about 30 seconds a picture (at a little over 1.2 megs a pic). Several other people were doing that, super annoyed we had to do it but it worked well. Butch, haha razor blades... I'll add to it that I will do my best to never purchase any ncaa related items/tickets because I am so disgusted at how we are treated.

oh and Phil Hawkins - sorry I stand corrected, I guess first and second rounds for Women's bball are "free" - actually imagine this concept, using existing internet access - WoW! I guess they start to charge at the the regionals.

I'm not even going to respond to the other part of the op's statement, that's just silly. (plus Gerry, Butch, Mark's and others are right on)

PS, thanks Daniel P that's what I figured, pure money grab: http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=35687#23

Return to --> Message Board Main Index