David Leeson leaves the DMN

[dbphotos]

A sign of the times in photojournalism.

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/...09/leeson.html

[lscottpht]

Yep, and Tom Pennington left the Star Telegram. Many great photogs took the buy out.

[CaptainTom]

I don't follow the DMN, but I'm completely bummed about the direction the Star-Telegram has gone. It's more like a USA today than anything any more.
I've heard from the few remaining staff that they are being pushed very hard and that morale is in the dumper.
Those that were offered a 'buy out' were probably smart to take them and move on. S-T is relying more and more on submitted photos from outside. It WILL provide some people with some ego boosts, but they pay very little per photo.

[toverman]

It's a sign of the times for journalism in general. Up until May, I was editor of a small weekly that was purchased by the Star-Telegram a few years ago. I got out right before the vultures started circling. The recent buyout at the S-T is the third major one in just a few months ... first they cut senior management, then 50 newsroom employees then another big bite from the newsroom and other divisions (I haven't heard too many specifics, but it sounds really bad). Next up will probably be layoffs at my former paper and the other smaller ones. It hasn't been a business about people for a long time, but now it's obviously and blatantly not.

We used to subscribe to the S-T seven days a week, but after leaving my paper I couldn't support it anymore. After buying a Sunday paper this weekend, it's painful to look at because there's not much in there to read. It won't be long, I think, before metro papers reduce the number of days they produce a printed product. News media still has not mastered the art of making money with online content, so more cuts are likely.

[dbphotos]

Yes, even the San Francisco Examiner has reverted to a magazine style free paper and there are rumors the SF Chronicle (the last SF daily) will be going away soon. That's huge for a city like SF to lose all its daily papers. I wouldn't be surprised to see the ST go away in the next couple of years, who knows if DMN can make it longer than that.

People prefer to get their news via the internet and t.v. Unfortunately, I think that equates to a decline in quality of reporting as well. We already know it has caused a decline in the quality of photos in newspapers, just look at your local paper and you'll see horrible quality photos in every publication, but apparently as long as they are free or cost $10 it doesn't matter to the paper's owners.

[crfitchjr]

I don't so much mind that newspapers are dying -- it's watching them commit suicide that pisses me off. – Molly Ivins, March 23, 2006


Now I’m not familiar with the operations of large newspapers, but I question some of their practices. So maybe someone could enlighten me.

I see staff journalists and photojournalists at the DMN that only rarely have work published. Are these people paid a salary to only put out occasional work? What are they doing during their work day to earn their pay?

I also question local papers sending crews of journalists and photojournalists to the Summer Olympics and to the two political conventions. That is expensive! I think photos and news stories could have been purchased from news services for much cheaper.

I guess my bottom line is, local papers should work harder to do what they do best, cover local news and let the national news service do what they do best, cover national/international news.

[Bruce M. Morris]

Bob, There you go throwing LOGIC into the mix!! What are you thinking???

[toverman]

Yeah, Bob. What's with the common sense?

If local metro papers would remember the cities in their names, they would be providing something no one else could rival because of the manpower, connections and space they can dedicate to stories ... even with the shrinking "news hole" as the number of pages and available editorial space dwindles. But when I was at the Star-Telegram, it was during a boom time and the place was packed with people ... too many.

There would be reporters who wouldn't have a bylined-story for weeks or months because they were working on "a special project." They might have a few briefs without attribution. Then there are the general assignment reporters whose names are on stories nearly every day. What I see happening at the S-T now is too few reporters trying to cover too much area, so that the coverage is reduced to trend stories that tell a little about a lot of things. And much of the photography is stock (Life section) or AP (news).

I'm cut from a slightly different cloth, as most of my newspaper experience has been as a wearer of multiple hats ... reporter/photographer/editor/page designer/floor mopper. I've always been able to work fairly fast. Admittedly, specializing may have made me better at one thing rather than being pretty good at most of it. I'm glad I'm out of the biz. Now I just need my freelance work to take off!

[JPalmer]

I've got more comments than I can probably share on this topic.

But Dave and Tom won't have trouble making money in this industry, even if it changes into something different.

And I love the Molly Ivins quote... so much so that I'm going to have to use it.

[Davidtxs]

I guess Belo is doin it alll over i saw Macy Jepson is gone from ch 8

[photojournalist]

Bob, some projects take time, maybe weeks, months, or a year to complete, so that's why you don't see bylines often by some shooters.

If all the papers use wire photos or stories, everyone would have the same thing. Did you see the DMN coverage of the Olympics. I don't think you can get that kind of coverage from the wire. Also, look at their coverage of the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, which they received Pulitzers for. Sure it would be cheaper to just pull stuff from the wire or even hire a local, but in the end you get what you paid for.

National news organization dosn't always cover national news the best. It dosn't matter if you work for a big agency or a small local paper, a good photographer is a good photographer no matter where you work. Everyone has their reasons for being where they are.

What you're saying seems logical, but it's more complicated than that. Sadly nowadays a lot of papers are cutting their travel budget and it shows in their coverage.

www.khamphaphoto.com

[dminton]

Originally Posted by crfitchjr

[B][I]I also question local papers sending crews of journalists and photojournalists to the Summer Olympics and to the two political conventions. That is expensive! I think photos and news stories could have been purchased from news services for much cheaper.

Cheaper, yes. For sure. But would the results be as good as sending someone of their own? NO.

Look at the Olympic coverage that Smiley Pool from the Houston Chronicle did last month. There were a ton of athletes at the Olympics who were connected to the Houston area and warranted specific coverage. LOCALIZATION of a larger story. Smiley was able to shoot who/what they needed, and get the photos transmitted on the Chronicle's deadline, something that is risky when you have to put in a request with a wire service to shoot something. Something else might come up and you're deadline might take a backseat to something else (the medal winners). (I think he was also shooting for all the Hearst papers, someone correct me if I'm wrong).

But more important than that is, if everyone subscribes to the idea that its cheaper and easier to just pull photos and stories of something from the wire, and people stop sending reporters/photographers to things, then look at how many viewpoints and angles are lost. The fewer outlets there are, the easier it is to repress information. Those who are telling can omit things that might make them look bad for instance. Several of the professional sports leagues in the US have contracts with a particular photo service and as part of that they stipulate that they don't want to see any photos which portray them in a bad light. As a result, that service doesn't send any shots of fights or bad sportsmanship, even if that was THE story of that game.

Now if it were the government saying that you couldn't publish something, then it's PRIOR RESTRAINT, from which journalists are protected by the Constituition (see " Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)" and "New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971") If someone were able control and release only what they felt we should know, then we're left with the "official version" of what happened, and no other source is able to verify or disprove that information. White House reporters have been dealing with this for the past 8 years. In one extreme case of lack of access, photographers were barred from photographing the president's meeting with the girl scout troop who sold the most cookies in the country, and a handout photo was issued.

Ya'll remember that scene in "Good Morning Vietnam", when Robin Williams gets fed up with the government sensors cutting stuff out of the news reports for him to read and busts into the room and starts reading the news about the deaths on-air?





Damn, I went off.

[photojournalist]

thanks David, I was trying to say what you just said.

[toverman]

David, you're talking about how it should be, not how it will be.

[dminton]

I'm irrepressibly idealistic.