| 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
Help me settle a disagreement.
Robert Scheer, Photographer
 |
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 2:56 PM on 10.26.10 |
->> Here's a scenario:
Newspaper staff photographer A makes a photograph of newspaper staffer B (reporter or photographer) in a rainstorm (both work for the same paper).
Newspaper A files the photograph as news, and it ends up in a gallery of staff-produced weather images from the day. Nothing particularly newsworthy exists about the image (Staffer B isn't stopping a bank robbery for instance), other than it's a basic rain photo.
Q: 1. Photographer A should have never filed the image. 2. Photographer A and the editor who added it to the gallery acted in error.
3. Photographer A is fine, but editor should have never posted the image to a news gallery. 4. No problem at all.
Thanks gang! |
|
Nick Adams, Photographer
|
Lincoln | NE | | Posted: 3:03 PM on 10.26.10 |
| ->> Both 1. and 2. |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 3:04 PM on 10.26.10 |
->> You came here to settle a diagreement?? Now that's funny!!!
I vote for #4. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 3:06 PM on 10.26.10 |
->> Um #4 ??
It a person standing in the rain.... Assuming that the rain is real. That the clouds and rain drops haven't been over toned or HDR'ed or otherwise manipulated.....
To someone somewhere the fact that it was raining is in fact "news".
For anyone answering 1 2 or 3 please provide an explanation and educate the rest us who don't see the problem. At least that way we all get something out of this exercise. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 3:10 PM on 10.26.10 |
->> More information is needed.
Did photographer A send it in saying "hey, here's staffer B getting soaked today. They may get a laugh out of it in the newsroom" and then the editor put it in a gallery?
If that is the case then the photographer is ok and the editor is not.
Did photographer A know that it was a fellow staffer before they took the photo or was it random chance they saw a person walking through the rain and snapped a photo and then realized it was a coworker?
If it was happenstance then there is a little freedom but generally fellow newspeople are not news unless they are doing something majorly heroic, above and beyond the call of their regular job. Therefore, all images of them should be avoided.
Running a photo of a fellow staffer, even if unknowing coincidence sets up too many accusations of a set up that it's not worth running it.
Kind of like the time years ago my apartment neighbors must have thought I had gone crazy when the local TV station had a live shot in the hospital of an anchor with her newborn. I was screaming at the top of my lungs "you are not news!!!!" |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 3:14 PM on 10.26.10 |
->> "Did photographer A know that it was a fellow staffer before they took the photo or was it random chance they saw a person walking through the rain and snapped a photo and then realized it was a coworker?"
This is the case. Filed as news, with a photo caption, including ID. |
|
Richard Wolowicz, Photographer
|
Montreal | QC | Canada | Posted: 3:19 PM on 10.26.10 |
| ->> 5. Let Liddy settle it and all parties involved are bound by his wisdom. |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 3:20 PM on 10.26.10 |
| ->> Here Liddy Liddy Liddy!!! |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 4:11 PM on 10.26.10 |
| ->> Now if there was a stuft chicken in the frame, then you got a story. |
|
Kent Nishimura, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Honolulu | HI | USA | Posted: 4:14 PM on 10.26.10 |
| ->> The final edition of the paper i worked at had a photo of myself and our online director standing across the street looking at the building as we reminisced about the paper, and how it was being shut down after being bought out by our competitor. the photo was taken by the photo editor, and the managing editor did raise questions about the ethics of it. The photo itself wasnt staged. But staff were in the photo. |
|
PJ Heller, Photographer
|
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 4:21 PM on 10.26.10 |
| ->> Definitely #1 and 2. |
|
Matt Cashore, Photographer
|
South Bend | IN | USA | Posted: 4:36 PM on 10.26.10 |
->> If I was an Indy Star subscriber (and I once was), I would not be troubled in the least seeing a weather feature photo that had an Indy Star staffer in the photo. I'd like to see the image--I might think to myself that the photographer was too lazy to walk beyond his or her own building for a weather feature, but if it was a compelling image (and I'm going to give blanket credit to any & all Indy Star photographers that it was a good image) then I'd take it as "The rain rains on everyone, no matter where you work."
So my call is #4. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 5:06 PM on 10.26.10 |
| ->> Did somebody say "a disagreement"? |
|
Mike Purcell, Photographer
|
ny | ny | USA | Posted: 5:27 PM on 10.26.10 |
| ->> Was the picture shot with a Canon or Nikon? |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 5:33 PM on 10.26.10 |
->> 1 and 2.
Would you use fellow staffer as a source in a news story? |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 6:18 PM on 10.26.10 |
| ->> Since you asked....so (at our paper) IF the photographer got the name AND knew it was a staffer it wouldn't run. In fact, I think you would probably get chastised pretty badly by all the editors involved. I know some who have responded don't understand this but at most newspapers it's unethical to shoot a feature of a family member or a fellow employee (news side) and use it in the paper. I guess you would have some wiggle room if it was a photo you shot and turned in and had NO idea it was a fellow employee, but if you got the name, surely you would be aware they worked in the newsroom (in this day and age of shrunken newsrooms). So IMHO it is 1&2. |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 6:19 PM on 10.26.10 |
->> It's at the editor's discretion. Anything can be news, but it's a question of what they'll accept. Shoot it, submit it and see what happens. And online... there's no reason they can't run it as it takes minutes to post and no paper or ink.
Reality is that you too live and breath the same air as your readers. So although you don't want to be the news by habit, to be the news one day isn't a big deal. There are 364 more days for your staff to work anonymously. |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 7:24 PM on 10.26.10 |
->> This is to whoever marked my post with a "huh".
At any reputable news publication, it is not acceptable to use a staff member as a source in a story. For example, if Reporter A is doing a story on some issue or event and Reporter B has a lot to say about the subject, Reporter A can't interview Reporter B. It is up to the reporter to find an "RP" to interview for the story. (That's newsroom lingo for "Real Person".) In a similar fashion, Photographer A can't take a news photo of a fellow newsroom employee and not expect to catch some guff for it. Find an "RP". It's not that hard to do. |
|
Blaine McCartney, Photographer
|
Sheridan | WY | USA | Posted: 7:48 PM on 10.26.10 |
->> Chuck,
In regards to family members being put in the paper, I don't think it's all that unethical to run a photo if he/she was an instrumental part of his or hers team win.
As for running photos of staffers, a paper that I worked at, the photographer had to buy doughnuts for the newsroom if a staff showed up in the paper. I made that error twice and I remember exactly what two photos they were. :) |
|
Bill Danielewski, Photographer
|
Needham | MA | USA | Posted: 7:52 PM on 10.26.10 |
| ->> Was "Cigar Guy" edited into the image? If so, then you are free and clear..... |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 8:42 PM on 10.26.10 |
| ->> Blaine, sorry, we're not talking a sports photo here. I think robert's post is about a stand alone feature. two different animals. of course, it would NOT be unethical if a player on a local team you were shooting was a future all-american and his dad worked at the paper, which just so happened to me at my paper. |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 9:58 AM on 10.27.10 |
->> Hey gang, thanks for the discussion, and I see there's no firm agreement. But, I'll go out on a limb and guess that the majority in the #1 and #2 camp have significant experience at a daily newspaper, while the #4s do not.
I observed the scenario I described recently at a newspaper in my region (I'm not outing anybody, so don't ask). I've been discussing this issue with a good friend of mine who sides more with the "Who cares?" scenario of #4.
My take is that I'd agree with #1 and #2. I've always been taught that we report the news, we don't make ourselves the news. To me, it's a no-brainer. The rule doesn't apply if there's something particularly newsworthy, like Kim K's bank robbery thwarting. As journalists, we're trained to determine that 1. A journalist simply walking in the rain is not particularly newsworthy, no matter how good the photo is. 2. A journalist who single-handedly stops a bank robbery in a rainstorm is newsworthy.
As others have brought up, a word reporter would never ask a fellow reporter for a quote about the weather for a daily story. That's just lazy and well, wrong. There should not be a different standard when it comes to the photo reportage, period.
A few years ago, I received a photo request that basically amounted to documenting one of MY NEWSPAPER'S REPORTERS who was producing a PR video piece, with the help of his/her family for their church. The reporter had been cagey about their family's involvement, so the request had been approved by my editors. I showed up, realized what was going on, made a few frames, just in case, called my boss, and with his approval, left. The reporter was admonished, and the images never saw the light of day.
Thanks all. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 11:41 AM on 10.27.10 |
->> Honestly, the whole thing irks me a little bit. OK, maybe more than a little bit. To me it is pure laziness all around. Lazy for the original photographer not to go out and enterprise a real photo. Lazy for the editor to think it was worth running.
Somewhere out there, there is a TV person going, "What's wrong with that, we stage shit all the time." You know they are. Rain + puddle + kid walking by = "Excuse me can you splash in that puddle for me."
I am not even a daily newspaper shooter and I have seen it happen. So, when a daily starts running photos that COULD HAVE been setup, even though they aren't, where is the line?
Seriously, go out and make a real photo. All that said, if the fact the staffer is in the photo was complete happenstance and it is a great photo, well, you have to look at the story of the image a little more. But, why even go there for a simple rain shot?
@Kent - I am actually OK with that photo, because, unfortunately, the news was the closing of the paper. So, in that case, since it was a true "moment", the image would work for me. |
|
Brian Leddy, Photographer
|
Gallup | NM | United States | Posted: 1:13 PM on 10.27.10 |
| ->> I vote #1 and 2. |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
|
Augusta | GA | USA | Posted: 1:26 PM on 10.27.10 |
| ->> 1 and 2. Leave it up to broadcast journalists to document themselves. |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 2:25 PM on 10.27.10 |
| ->> Scott, thanks for the thoughts. I agree with you about Kent's story. The closing of the paper is a bona fide news story. When our afternoon edition, The News, shut about ten years ago, people asked me on the street about it for weeks, they were mostly bummed. Then again, someone asked me LAST WEEK if her photo would appear in the Star or the News the next day. But discussions about reader malaise and ignorance are for another day. . . |
|
TD Paulius, Photographer
|
Orland Park | IL | USA | Posted: 9:39 PM on 10.27.10 |
| ->> If it was raining, the glass is half full! |
|
Rodrigo Pena, Photographer
|
Beaumont | CA | USA | Posted: 12:12 AM on 10.28.10 |
| ->> Robert I vote for 1 & 2. I've been taught that scenario is unethical. There are some that would argue why not? What's the big deal? The big deal is perception. Once someone finds out that a member of the newspaper's staff is being published in photos, the reputation tends to go downhill. There are some who may presume that the photo was staged. It's not a good idea to have the public thinking the newspaper is staging photos. Credibility is extremely important. |
|
Luke Sharrett, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | United States | Posted: 5:59 PM on 10.28.10 |
| ->> Mark all three "Inappropriate" and let God sort them out. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|