| 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
Photographic History Made at WH
Andrew Fielding, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 10:28 PM on 06.22.11 |
->> Great. That means that four or five others weren't needed for the gig. Fewer staffers needed, fewer freelancers given assignments, fewer agency photographers photos out there making their creators money.
Pyrrhic victory anyone? |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 10:37 PM on 06.22.11 |
->> Jim, all I hear when you repeat that line of argument is that journalistic integrity should be compromised to preserve jobs and the reality is that I do not believe that there are enough of these gigs to represent a significant number of assignments. So, four photographers did not get to shoot the speech, first, do you know for sure that nobody else was assigned to be there to photograph peripheral aspects of the event? do you know that the assignments would have gone to stringers who clearly would have lost one assignment fee? Or were the assignments going mostly to staffers, who only lost what, an overtime check maybe?
There are issues with the White House over still photo access, but this one specific event is not the place to hold the fight.
just my .02 of course.
Sean |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 11:17 PM on 06.22.11 |
->> Jim,
It sounds like you have never been in a pool situation. Those four or five people you mention have to be there or their company doesn't get the pool image (at least that's how most pools work), not to mention they have to be there to transmit the image when the card gets passed to them. All those people are typically there protectively at the White House anyway whether the president has a speech to do or not and getting paid for it. |
|
Mark Goldman, Photographer
|
Silver Spring | MD | USA | Posted: 11:37 PM on 06.22.11 |
->> How about a big congratulations to Pablo Martinez Monsivais who was the AP photographer and an all around good guy? My only question is what kind of pizza he is buying. ;-)
One of the big reasons that I have essentially quit posting here is because of the overall virulent tone of so many postings. Too quick to knock someone or something for my taste. Thanks to Mark T. for the enlightening explanation regarding the POTUS pool. |
|
Mark Perlstein, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Plano | TX | USA | Posted: 8:04 AM on 06.23.11 |
| ->> Kind of interesting that some folks here are so unhappy with their life and their career that all they do is complain about our industry. IMHO |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 11:28 AM on 06.23.11 |
->> "It sounds like you have never been in a pool situation."
Just lots, probably hundreds, having held White House and Senate hard passes for nearly 20 years. There's the theory of pools and the practice of pools. What this decision means is that there will be fewer people working and getting paid.
The US press are such wimps that they roll over when presented with conditions like this. What everyone should have done is tell the White House that an expanded pool gets into the speech or there will be no photos transmitted. No hand outs, no video frames, nothing.
I remember years ago that when French photographers were presented with new restrictions on photo coverage at the Élysée Palace they all downed their cameras and refused to photograph what the then President of France considered a big event and all of their employers went along with it.
The Prez was not pleased, things changed quickly, coverage reinstated. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 11:43 AM on 06.23.11 |
| ->> Jim, I would be in favor of an outright boycott for more access, but it's pretty clear it's not going to happen. for one, the admin (and I presume previous ones as well) simply don't care about stills enough. If TV played along then a boycott would have some teeth. and without TV the lack of backbone in the U.S. newspaper industry that you cite pretty much makes it a given that a boycott won't happen. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:00 PM on 06.23.11 |
| ->> Just curious. If I read the article correctly they moved four images during the speech and then after ingesting the cards they edited and moved ten more. My question is what happened to the rest of the files? Are they simply deleted or does the AP have access to them while others do not? |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 1:40 PM on 06.23.11 |
->> I'm going to make one clarification, because I have been called on the impression I've given and did not really intend.
The situation with the East Room and Oval Office presents a logistical situation with which I'm not going to quibble. The matter of wider access to White House events on the other hand is a matter that still needs some work.
The NPPA called for a more open dialog over issues of access to White House events and this is where I'm coming from:
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2011/02/editorial.html
Perhaps the real answer is to stop covering photo ops and have individuals work on case-by-case stories with the White House?
this is a much larger discussion about the role of journalism and supersedes fighting over pool coverage of a speech.
I mean, really, how much of what happens in any photo op is news? Overall as an industry we should be concentrating on telling stories and reporting issues and events with more than carefully orchestrated photo ops.
Of course this all goes to the greater issue of shrinking newsrooms and stretched resources and the general decline of news organizations being able to cover stories on a deeper level. More and more of what we do, not just in D.C., is shallow photo-op type coverage.
We need to celebrate those who are able in these times to do quality journalism. We do also need to fight for whatever little steps we can take. That includes being happy that we get to cover an actual speech (which is by it's nature a photo op) rather than a re-creation of that speech.
Sean |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 1:49 PM on 06.23.11 |
->> Jim - Even though there was only one pool photographer in the room under the new policy, the way I look at it, at least now independent photojournalists have their foot in the door.
Further, are you still defending the old policy of staging photos simply because of your perception that it preserves jobs? I'm guessing that live, prime-time televised speeches are a relatively small part of the total workload that a White House pool photographer does. Just because there's only one pool photojournalist taking photos of the president standing at a podium during one of these live prime-time speeches - which happen, what, two, maybe three times a year? - doesn't render the rest of the pool's jobs useless.
While more access would be ideal (and should continue to be lobbied for), Sean is correct in noting an outright boycott isn't going to happen. But I do think it's cool that the outcry over the Bin Laden speech fiasco - more from the public than from the media who complacently participated in the re-enactments for decades - lead to this change in policy at the W.H. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 11:46 PM on 06.23.11 |
->> "...are you still defending the old policy of staging photos simply because of your perception that it preserves jobs?"
Nope. If the situation changes and photography is allowed during the actual speech then a single person pool is wrong. Let as many pool members in to the speech as were allowed into the after-speech. Set ground rules about noise, positions, etc and let them have at it. The photographers that cover the White House are not idiots, if they have to be quiet then they'll be quiet. If the President's mics will pick up room noise that badly then take out the old omni mics and put in cardioid mics that will be more directional. There are solutions. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 11:59 PM on 06.23.11 |
->> I can agree with everything you've stated, Jim - all your points have been, and should continue to be, argued. But again, the new policy is a foot in the door. Is this not progress? Is one independent pool photographer in the room during the live speech not 1,000x better than five shooting a re-enactment?
And I still have to ask, do you really think people will lose their jobs just because they won't be covering 2-3 speeches a year? |
|
Andrew Link, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Winona | MN | USA | Posted: 12:01 AM on 06.24.11 |
| ->> This may be a silly question, but do we really need more than one photographer shooting a speech that looks the same every time? Wouldn't the 10+ photos the photographer moved be enough? Sounds like more than one would be overkill to me. |
|
Chris Detrick, Photographer, Assistant
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 1:57 AM on 06.24.11 |
| ->> No. Jim Colburn is an old school crusty asshole curmudgeon. Nothing you can do will please him. Just let him, like the the now extinct 'fish,' fade away into ss obscurity. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 9:44 AM on 06.24.11 |
| ->> I'm really not sure namecalling is necessary here. I may disagree with Jim's assessment of the situation, but I respect his right to express that opinion. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 11:52 AM on 06.24.11 |
->> "Is this not progress?"
The problem is that there never seems to be "progress" in situations like this. Whenever there's a reduction in coverage there never seems to be an increase later on.
"...an old school crusty asshole curmudgeon"
By "old school" you must mean highly experienced.
By "crusty" you must mean not willing to take s**t lying down.
By "curmudgeon" you must mean someone confident in his or her knowledge.
By "asshole" you must be looking in a mirror. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 7:50 AM on 06.25.11 |
->> Jim, this is not a "reduction" of coverage.
Number of independent photojournalists allowd to shoot during live, prime-time speeches on May 2: 0
Number allowed on June 22: 1
Net gain/loss: +1 |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 9:14 PM on 06.25.11 |
->> "this is not a "reduction" of coverage"
Oh yes it is. Just watch.
Net loss: immeasurable. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 9:31 PM on 06.25.11 |
| ->> Sorry, Jim, I'm afraid you're going to have to explain that one to me. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|