What do new practices actually threaten?
Angela Grant highlighted a long discussion at SportsShooter about the “vs.” argument — traditional still photojournalism “vs.” all this video, audio, multimedia. Photojournalist Heather Hughes started the show with her post, which said, in part:
What direction we will take is still uncertain but the writing seems to be on the wall: to work at a newspaper you need to shoot video and create audio/video slideshows for the web. I haven’t been in the biz long enough to be old-fashioned but I feel that way. … I think video is intrusive, limited and doesn’t have anything close to the power a still image has to tell the story and create change.
A lot of people agree with Hughes. A lot of others disagree. There’s a lot to consider in the discussion, so it’s worth your time (I think) to read it all. Find out what people are thinking — both pro and con.
What I found very interesting was the idea (not the first time we’ve heard it) that if a journalist has to do new things — different, additional things — it is a threat, or a detriment, to what she used to do. In Hughes’s case, the added tasks of gathering audio or shooting video might prevent her from capturing “the perfect shot” with her still camera. For a reporter, maybe writing a blog takes time away from shoe-leather reporting or background checking.
Another way to look at it is to ask what that “perfect shot” really means. Sure, there is such a thing. Does it really matter at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new highway? Heck, no. Perfect shot? You’ve got to be kidding.
If you’re at a four-alarm fire, and someone on the third floor is tossing a baby down to the firefighters on the ground — yeah, there is a perfect shot in that situation. But I wonder — let’s say newspaper A has reasonably steady video of the baby’s rescue, and newspaper B has a fabulous still image of the baby in the air. Which Web site will get the most viewers?
Maybe the perfect shot today, for some stories, is NOT a still photo. Maybe it is video.
As for the idea that online news organizations are trying to imitate TV — considering how bad most TV news is, that would be crazy. If you look at the best online news video, you’ll see stories that look and sound and feel very different from TV news in every aspect. If you haven’t seen the good stuff, then you need to watch it.
The new practices might be detrimental to the art of the still photo. They might be detrimental to Hughes’s ability to love her job. But are they detrimental to journalism? To telling a story?
I mean no disrespect toward still photography. But there was a time when a lot of newspaper shooters felt skeptical about shooting color. There was a period of resistance to digital cameras. Change is part of life. Change is inevitable in the practice of journalism. And resistance — well, resistance is natural. But not always right.
Amen, Mindy. Change is always scary, because it involves uncertainty and getting outside your comfort zone.
At the same time, I’m baffled by the resistance so many journalists proclaim toward new skills, new media, and new approaches to journalism. Journalists are, after all, paid to be curious. Why is it the last thing so many of us are curious about is new approaches to how we do our job?
- Amy Gahran
August 29, 2007 at 10:25 amIt’s an interesting discussion. Seems to be that going from b/w to color or film to digital isn’t the same as going from still to video.
One of the commenters on sportsshooter equates himself with the sex pistols and ramones, early punk bands breaking new ground. I wonder if it’s more like when Black Flag, a great early punk band, started putting out boring heavy metal.
August 29, 2007 at 10:58 amThings have definitely changed and there’s no way to ever go back, but I wonder how much things will settle once the video craze has ebbed.
I’m not so sure that we have an either or situation. I think that still photography and video are two completely different beasts that have their pros and cons.
If we take the people falling from a building story - the video might be too quick and might be too distracting to be more than a curiosity. While still photography might have captured the terror on people’s faces or stopped that moment in time so that readers can study and connect to the victims. Or it could go the other way - the video could have the gasps and screams from the crowd or capture the velocity of the falling bodies, making it more compelling than a still shot that doesn’t show faces and is hard to make out.
But both mediums would have their pros and cons and one shouldn’t ever replace the other.
Not learning or accepting a completely new craft is being ignorant… but so is ditching a tried and true form of communication just to keep up with the latest technological trend that hasn’t been embraced by the public yet.
August 29, 2007 at 11:32 amYes, I’m not sure that the b/w and digital moves are great analogies, but I do recall reading some impassioned arguments somewhere that black-and-white is somehow more “real” than color … some of the same ideas about capturing the moment in a way that makes people really look at it, really understand it, etc. And of course, early arguments against digital were that the QUALITY of the images was so much worse than 35mm film.
August 29, 2007 at 11:51 amI read the initial post on SportShooter and kept up with it for a while, but haven’t been back in a few days to see other comments.
Certainly there is a place for both still and video. And in my opinion, one isn’t better than the other in a battle royal situation. Each one has its place in various organizations and newsrooms. I’m also convinced film will not become totally obsolete as many have predicted. I believe it will become popular again with photographers that have come of age in the digital era once video is more common.
What came to mind though is that a lot of still digital photographers, not all of course, cover an assignment by burning up 2 and 4 GB cards in a short time in attempt to get the “perfect shot” in a short period of time. In my opinion, some of these journalists are already making video. I’m guilty of this too at times.
I’ve always contributed the following quote to Kenny Irby, the consummate educator (of Poynter and all around great guy fame): “In times of change, learners inherit the earth.” And there is no difference in this situation. It seems a large number of writers, editors, managers, etc. are adjusting their MO as media companies try to figure out new business models that assure profitability and keep up with community reporting in a digital era.
Journalism is a job and a passion for many. And being creative is a must for many journalists. I’m excited about the new opportunities that video and multimedia journalism present, but still photography will always be what inspires me.
I think journalist and news organizations are currently driving the multimedia train more so than audiences. But that gap is closing and certain segments of readers are going to begin to dictate what type of content delivery they want and that will be video in my opinion.
Sorry for the long post.
August 29, 2007 at 12:25 pmAnd don’t forget that it took 20 years after the first photograph ran in a newspaper before they became common! People thought the wood-carving illustrations were more accurate. I can’t quite understand that one, but…
August 29, 2007 at 12:53 pm[...] Teaching Online Journalism » What do new practices actually threaten? “Interesting: that if a journalist has to do new things - different, additional things - it is a threat, or a detriment, to what she used to do. Change is inevitable in the practice of journalism. Resistance is natural. But not always right.” (tags: tidbits+fodder journalism media+evolution perceptions skills change adapting) [...]
August 29, 2007 at 3:21 pmJournalist in addition to being curious are also by nature cynical. There are new possibilities in the relm of multimedia but if someone would rather prefect the art of the still image why are they labeled as dinosaures resistant to change?
August 30, 2007 at 11:05 amI’m happy to see that the discussion has spread beyond Sportsshooter and I hope to see it spread further. I did not try to argue who was right or wrong, as you did, only to start a conversation that examines what we are doing and the reasons and whether or not they are right. This is not a matter of being resistant to change, it’s a matter of recognizing video and stills as the two seperate mediums they have always been.
You were never a professional photographer, as your bio shows, so I don’t expect you to understand the reason why we value photography. But I am sad to see you are spreading this lack of understanding to students. In your fire example I believe the still photograph which will most likely capture the pain and fear on the subjects faces, frozen in time, allowing you to feel it with them is going to “get more hits” and have more impact on solving the cause of the fire than a 10 sec. video clip.
I worked through the film to digital change, and work with those than changed from B&W to color, this is different. The sooner everyone realizes this the sooner real progress will be made.
August 30, 2007 at 3:35 pm[...] McAdams responds to the inflammatory post on SportsShooter that I highlighted yesterday. “Change is part of life. Change is inevitable in the practice [...]
July 1, 2008 at 3:11 pm