Well said, Bill.
Ken, if my aging memory serves, on Guild (Unionized) newspapers,
photogs ran on roughly the same scale as reporters.
Rick
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Bill Pearce <billcpearce@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Limited sources produced some good effects. Not enough reporters, too few
> pages of cheap paper? Filter! That used to be an editor's job. Hard to
> discern the difference between a tornado in Oklahoma or a terrorist attack
> in NYC and the goings on of Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears? Walter
> Cronkite
> fixed that for you. And worth versus pay? Who is worth more, Walter or Rush
> Limbaugh? A skilled reporter and a low end disc jockey. And who makes more
> money, or did? And what's the excuse for the Kardashian sisters.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Norton
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 2:04 PM
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] Sun-Times
>
> > I understand the problems newspapers face, but I think history will look
> > unkindly on the diffusion of sources of news and information, and the
> > cultural changes that sap us of time to read.
>
> There are two diffusions involved: Diffusion of the sourcing of
> material and the diffusion of distribution.
>
> Souce diffusion is where the actual news gathering is in the hands of
> many instead of the few. In the "olden days" if a staff photographer
> and writer and/or ringer wasn't there, it didn't happen. Now that
> everybody has a cellphone with a camera, we have more "news" than ever
> before.
>
> Distribution diffusion is the other aspect to this. The consumers of
> news have more places to get it from than ever before. No longer is
> there a virtual monopoly on news. Whereas that one staff newspaper
> photographer may have taken a picture that 75% of the population (of
> the distribution coverage area) may see, now it's a tiny fraction.
> It's been almost two decades since I've gotten a newspaper
> subscription. It's been several years since we've even had TV news. We
> don't even have TV to speak of. I still have far more sources of news
> than I had even two years ago.
>
> It's easy to lament the onslaught of the freelancers, but in reality,
> those freelancers have been replaced by the general populace.
> EVERYBODY is a source now.
>
> But to look at this in another light, how many of those staff
> newspaper photographers actually made a decent living? Very few. In
> the business world, people who are as low paid as the typical news
> photographer will get little to no respect by management. "If they are
> so stupid to work for that little of pay, then they are too stupid to
> keep around" is the mentality.
>
>
> ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.zone-10.com
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|