Okay lets get started....
Some newspapers deserve to fail and the sooner, the better. Only after a paper shuts down will better alternatives and better ideas come forward.
If a newspaper publisher was smart, (and "smart publisher" may be an oxymoron), they'd do the exact opposite of what they're doing now. Let's recap: everything done over the past 18 years has failed and yet papers are continuing to do the same thing.
Instead of going in the wrong direction of laying off photographers and having reporters take pictures/video with crappy little iPhones, why not do what has been proven to be 100% effective: give photographers a pen and a pad paper. Fast, cheap and easy.
That's correct, have photographers report on what they're shooting. It's easier to learn how to operate a pen than a camera, especially when papers don't seem to care about spelling or grammar anymore.
Over the past +20 years, there have been many photographers who have morphed into effective "two-ways". In the same 20 years, from all four Toronto dailies, I recall maybe five reporters who could shoot their own average pictures.
But wait, there's more.
By expanding a photographer's role, this would instantly free up most GA reporters who could then be assigned to investigative work, in-depth reporting, or to any specialized beat (politics, court, business.). This would increase the paper's value to the reader and help differentiate the paper from the generic online news.
The extra cost to do this? Nothing.
Let's make it simple:
Photograph => emotion => interested readers
Text => information => wait a minute while I skim the first few lines...
Readership studies since the late 90s have continually shown that most text articles are
never read to completion. Only ~13% are read to completion. Yet every single photo is looked at. Every. Single. One.
But as soon as you
dumb down the pictures, you dumb down, or lose, your audience.
In a world which is expanding day by day, literature is no longer enough … Our busy age does not always have time to read, but it always has time to look.
Does that make sense in today's world? It was written in 1858 by French writer Theophile Gautier who was commenting on the power of visual arts including the new art of photography.
Just to point out, starting from the 1930s, as newspaper picture use went up, so did newspaper readership. Over the past 20 years, as newspaper picture use has fallen, so has readership. Coincidence?
It's astounding how newspaper publishers continue to squander, waste and ignore the talent of their employees. I worked at a paper where reporters had on-air TV reporting experience and live radio reporting experience. Yet these reporters were not allowed to use their experience for the paper's web site. Photographers with video skills learned in the 1990s were ignored for web videos in the early 00s. (These photogs quit and went to work for TV).
Employees are a newpaper's only assets that can earn readers. Disposing of them makes no sense.
Make no mistake. Laying off photographers has nothing to do with journalism, the readers or the advertisers because getting rid of photographers damages all three of those. Laying off photographers is a publisher admitting that they have no idea what to do next. They're lost. They've given up.
Saying that reporters with cellphones will fill the gap is laughable. They're fooling only themselves. Even reporters know they will fail at photography. I've had reporters hand me their cellphone and ask me to shoot a few "nice pictures" for them.
From the previously mentioned
CBC story:
The Brunswick News' regional general manager said the layoffs will allow them to "adjust to a new technological reality, helping to ensure that we remain competitive in a media world that is constantly changing."
Total crap. New technological reality?! Is he still in the 1990s? What he meant is that the paper needs to adjust to a new, self-inflicted, financial restraint to ensure they don't go out of business in a failing newspaper world that is constantly changing so they have no idea what to do.
"Our reporters now have the technology to quickly and easily take pictures allowing them to provide the essential elements to deliver quality content to our readers."
More crap. Technology does not take pictures. Clearly they don't have a clue what a "picture" is or what "quality" is. I've had senior editors, managing editors, publishers and even the paper's CEO ask what we do. They all assume we walk in, point and click, and leave. Totally clueless.
By the way, for at least six years, technology has existed to quickly and easily generate text articles. So why isn't this paper using it? (A few sample links:
1,
2,
3).
"These staffing changes are in line with our long-term strategy of digital transition. They are also aligned with similar changes by other media publications, including Sports Illustrated."
Shovel it on. Comparing itself to Sports Illustrated?! Is he kidding? It's a different situation. It appears this publisher is banking on the "a million flies can't be wrong" strategy.
It's impossible for a newspaper to cut its way to success. The
Three Rules have repeatedly proved it. A newspaper's *only* play when it comes to value is its employees.
A newspaper laying off photographers is like an airline cutting off its wings, to save on fuel costs, and thinking the flight attendants can distract the passengers from noticing.
Topic: Moncton Times & Transcript, Telegraph-Journal photographers laid off (Read 2597 times)