CNN Lays Off Photojournalists, Citing the Accessibility of Quality Cameras

[mjs1973]

There have been lots of discussions on this forum, and many others about the business of photography and what happens when people give away their photos for free, or drastically undercut the market with their prices. Here is a direct result of those actions. CNN has given pink slips to nearly a dozen photojournalists. The reason behind this? Why pay professionals when we can use the photos we get from the general public for free.

We also spent a great deal of time analyzing how we utilize and deploy photojournalists across all of our locations in the U.S. [...] We looked at the impact of user-generated content and social media, CNN iReporters and of course our affiliate contributions in breaking news. Consumer and pro-sumer technologies are simpler and more accessible. Small cameras are now high broadcast quality. More of this technology is inthe hands of more people. After completing this analysis, CNN determined that some photojournalists will be departing the company.

CNN Lays Off 50 Staffers After Employee Appreciation Week | Reuters

Thoughts?

[Old Timer]

Sad commentary on the direction that media is taking in regard to photos and videos for that mater.

[Liz]

Sad commentary on the direction that media is taking in regard to photos and videos for that mater.

I agree with Larry. I feel sorry for those who have worked so hard to get their education, not to mention the hours and energy they have expended. I don't care what CNN says, they will not get the quality nor service that comes from the education, experience and knowledge of the professional photographer.

Just my 2 cents.

Liz

[Skyman]

This has been coming for a long long time. over 20 years ago a guest lecture from Australian Associated Press said that it was more efficient for them to train a journalist in how to use a high quality camcorder.

They could film some footage, take some photos, set it on a tripod and record a piece to camera and then upload it all and send it to the press office, where editors would convert that "data" into a newspaper article, a voice grab for radio, a tv newsclip and publish it to the web and mainstream media sources in half the time. Back then the future was in journalists multi skilling, these days dslr's are so good that they often wouldn't need to learn much about the science behind photography / video. For the press photographer, the shoot first focus later maxim is very true. Any footage is better than none, even if it is badly composed/exposed/focused. Add to this that you tube has sensitised the audience to expect low quality camera phone footage and it is no wonder that the photo journalists are going.

That doesn't mean I agree, I think a team of trained professionals will always produce more quality news than a do everything journalist, but unless people start demanding that quality by boycotting news agencies that don't provide it, then we have no one to blame but ourselves.

[Greg McCary]

I also think has been a long time coming. I think photo journalist over seas covering wars and civil unrest are safe for now. I see things all the time when I am out and about I could probably submit to the paper but I am not one to send a picture of a wreck ect and spreading ones bad luck, I know if I had a wreck or something I wouldn't want someone taking my picture.
A friend of mine died in a car fire when she couldn't get out. Several people tried to break the glass to get to her in time but the car had got to hot for them to get to her. The paper posted a picture someone had taken with the car in full flames. I thought that was low class and disrespectful to her family and friends.

[GB1]

I think we all knew this was coming. Anybody with a camera can snap away and catch a decent shot by accident if they take enough of them, and digital shooting is free. Plus, the cameras are getting smarter and smarter, and post processing can fix many of the amateur mistakes they make (which we ALL make at times , just hopefully not as often).

Greg, really sorry about your friend. Way back, someone lit our detached garage on fire one night. My car happened to be parked in front of it, but the time I got out there the fire was so hot I could not open the car door (it was unlocked) and put the car in neutral to roll it back ... it was like an oven door opening in my face. So I know what those people were up against.

Final comment on photojournalism: how long before there are no professional writers at these periodicals either?

[Greg McCary]

Thanks GB, on a funnier note there was a garage fire at a house next to one of our schools. An old car being worked on had a leaking gas tank and started the fire. When the firemen arrived the owner ask one of the firemen to save a box in one of the bedrooms. When the fireman retrieved the box he opened it and it was full of pot.lol
Not only did he lose the house, it was later torn down, he also got charged for having drugs close to a school.

[mwfanelli2]

The days of general photojournalists are over. That is sad for those who lose their jobs but, let's face it, it was a long time coming. Pro photos and videos of dangerous or hard to get to places will still be in demand, but that is quickly becoming a niche field.

I see this as a good thing! With so many cameras clicking away, amateurs are capturing events in sheer numbers that regular photojournalists just can't get. Plus, because they are reacting emotionally, I find that these videos and images tend to have a reality and immediacy that professional photojournalists don't have.

Disrespect of the subject matter? Please, photographers have been doing this for eternity, pro or not. How many people on this site alone think nothing of snapping "heartwarming" photos of street people? I love the weak excuses as to why this "helps", rather than exploits, the homeless. How is a professional taking a photo at a fire any different than an amateur? Both want to get the image. We all love to stare at accidents, the gorier the better. That's just human nature.

The world changes! There was extensive belly aching when AF cameras were introduced and "reduced the value" of skills learned by manual camera users. Film to digital, wow what an uproar! Photoshop vs chemical darkrooms. Paper books to ebooks. Even the trivial laptops to iPads. Someone always loses, but more people win. That's not sad, it's just progress.

[Don Schaeffer]

I think it's part of dumbing down. People can't tell the difference between quality and mediocre grab any more. Pretty soon the media will be filled with smiling snapshots.

[GB1]

There will always be arguments as to whether photographs of tragic or unbecoming situations are morally right.

I don't know the answer, but the biggest question I always have is, if the photographer had put the camera down and helped instead of shooting, could they have prevented or mitigated the situation? If the answer is no, I don't believe that there's anything fundamentally, morally wrong with capturing the scene.

I think of the photographer who captured the pix of people falling (or jumping) out of the World Trade Towers on 9/11, to die quickly rather than burn to death from the fires. The guy captured an incredibly powerful, historical event - would it have been better, in some moral way, if he did not take that photograph?

[mwfanelli2]

I think of the photographer who captured the pix of people falling (or jumping) out of the World Trade Towers on 9/11, to die quickly rather than burn to death from the fires. The guy captured an incredibly powerful, historical event - would it have been better, in some moral way, if he did not take that photograph?

Look at the photos of 9/11 displayed in a recent issue of American Photographer. Powerful stuff and most did not exploit individuals. You can record something significant without trading on a victim's pain.

But you are right, people will argue this point forever.

[mattb]

Too bad but not surprising. Technology and society moving forward always makes some jobs obsolete but also can create new ones (or shift existing ones) at the same time. It's too bad for those people who lost their jobs, that's for sure.
But the human element involved in making a quality, emotion-evoking image is still in demand in the art world. It's just that the bar is being constantly raised by accessible technology and only the truly excellent will be successful at it.
I'll definitely be keeping my day job for now!

[freygr]

The change came with Digital Photography. Why it's the cost of film and processing, digital no cost until you print on paper. Papers, and TV could get by 2 mega pixel images HD TV is only 2.07 mega pixels, and news papers use screens of 80 to 100 lines really reducing the photos resolution. Also in 2000 the cost of an point and shot started at $300 or more, but now the same camera start about $39, and there all starts about 10 mega pixels!

[xystren]

I think it's part of dumbing down. People can't tell the difference between quality and mediocre grab any more. Pretty soon the media will be filled with smiling snapshots.

It is an unfortunate state of society.. it has been a long time coming. As soon as news reporting became more of a netowork ratings game, and less of a journalistic endeavor. But the argument will continue on, and most will be too concerned about who Kim Kardashian is going to marry next to even notice... let along know what makes a good photo.

[Liz]

Thanks GB, on a funnier note there was a garage fire at a house next to one of our schools. An old car being worked on had a leaking gas tank and started the fire. When the firemen arrived the owner ask one of the firemen to save a box in one of the bedrooms. When the fireman retrieved the box he opened it and it was full of pot.lol
Not only did he lose the house, it was later torn down, he also got charged for having drugs close to a school.

That is really funny! Did he think the firemen would not check what the box contained? Part of their job description!

Thanks for a tidbit of humor! :thumbsup:

Liz

[Neous]

Indeed too bad for those photogs,
CNN not being a print press can get away with snapshots for their stories.
My local news channels love to point out that the pictures are submitted by viewers and invite everybody to partake.
I guess that puts a different light on a guest we had at our photography club last month, we had a lady who's a journalist joined us, she was looking for some help using her camera so she can snap some pictures when doing her stories

[Franglais]

Too bad but not surprising. Technology and society moving forward always makes some jobs obsolete but also can create new ones (or shift existing ones) at the same time. It's too bad for those people who lost their jobs, that's for sure.
But the human element involved in making a quality, emotion-evoking image is still in demand in the art world. It's just that the bar is being constantly raised by accessible technology and only the truly excellent will be successful at it.
I'll definitely be keeping my day job for now!

There have never been so many published images as today. By "published" I include Internet and personal publishing like Facebook. I am exposed to hundreds of new images every day, and the non-professional ones are sometimes more interesting and original than the professional ones.

Lets just be thankful for one thing: there is less need for professional photojournalists to go to some hell-hole, get shot, kidnapped or ransomed because now someone local can do the picture.