CNN Fires Photojournalists

ian408 · November 30, 2011

CNN fired some 50 of its photojournalists citing "citizen journalists" and the availability of good quality cameras. Source.

Did CNN err by letting the PJ's go? What do you think this means for photojournalism in the long run? For journalism?

moose135 · November 30, 2011

Unfortunately, this doesn't surprise me. The major daily newspaper I used to work for (not as a photog) laid off most of their full time photo staff several years ago, and now relies on a small staff plus freelancers. They also solicit submissions from the general public - with no compensation - for lifestyle and feature images. Corporations that own the news media see news as one more commodity that effects the corporate bottom line, rather than a public service.

RogersDA · November 30, 2011

...solicit submissions from the general public - with no compensation

This is it, and is something the public at-large has no clue about.

ian408 · November 30, 2011

I think the whole notion of "free" photography is just kind of strange to me. A PJ is trained to make great photos and to have an eye for what to capture. The average GWC is just gonna grab the crap shots. Not that they're not trying but the quality of the photos is going to suffer and the news organizations will still benefit when they sell or use the images elsewhere--and the shooter is probably not going to receive even a courtesy note.

Sam · December 1, 2011

Several thoughts come to mind.

First: Shear genus!!! They get rid of a few experienced and paid PJ's and end up with 750,000 morons working for free. Good grief even China pays the kids.

Second: If you spend a little time reading the fine print you will be astounded at what they have written.

Third: One example of nonsensical terms, " By submitting your material, for good and valuable consideration" Good and valuable consideration, sounds good, but wait..........They then go on to say "the sufficiency and receipt of which you hereby acknowledge, you hereby grant to CNN and its affiliates a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide license to edit, telecast, rerun, reproduce, use, create derivative works from, syndicate, license, print, sublicense, distribute and otherwise exhibit the materials you submit, or any portion thereof in any manner and in any medium or forum, whether now known or hereafter devised, without payment to you or any third party.

If I can only get a few ranchers and farmers on the same program I can open the American burger chain and beat out all the other burger chains. Just think of the bragging rights these ranchers and farmers will have!

Sam

angevin1 · December 1, 2011

ian408 wrote: »

CNN fired some 50 of its photojournalists citing "citizen journalists" and the availability of good quality cameras. Source.

Did CNN err by letting the PJ's go? What do you think this means for photojournalism in the long run? For journalism?

Nothing really. All I see is a business that took it's time to reaccess it's staffing. In media tech, there ought to be yearly reassessment now days. Their internal study took them three years and anyone who uses tech, knows three years in tech-advancement is a long time. They let more than simple PJ's go it would seem. [Here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cnn-cuts-50-staff-members-260737]
I am no PJ, but they seem to be an intelligent bunch by and large and I suspect many can easily mold, meld and fold right back into the mainstream of their business without much pain. That is of course if they wish to do so. If they want things the way they were and are, then of course that half-life is done.
CNN has plenty of jobs available and posted too.

Additionally, if you're at all familiar with CNN's humble beginnings with their not so humble proprietor at the time, then I'd say it's been a good ride for those PJ's.

ziggy53 · December 1, 2011

Please note that while around 50 "staffers" were let go, 11 of those were photojournalists:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/11/idUS39879393020111111

"Nearly a dozen photojournalists were given pink slips -- four in New York, five in Washington, one in Miami, and one in Los Angeles -- according to an individual with knowledge."

While I cannot condone the action by CNN, it is just a sign of the times.

A few years ago, my former brother-in-law was working for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. He was an assistant editor at the time. Unfortunately, around half of the staff was already let go when he made his decision to take a buy-out and leave voluntarily. He has struggled to find work ever since.

Three years ago there were 2 major newspapers in Denver, CO.; the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post. Early in 2009 the Rocky Mountain News ceased operations and closed their doors, after nearly 150 years of news. (I have a relative who used to work for them.)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/26/rocky-mountain-news-closes-friday-final-edition/

You can find similar stories scattered throughout the USA.

The truth is that newspapers and magazines, TV stations and radio stations, all make make their money from advertisers. Unfortunately advertising budgets for the major clients are dramatically down as the clients find other avenues to sell their goods. Subscriptions, another source of revenue for newspapers and magazines, are also destructively down.

Unless and until the media find new sources of revenue, media will continue to have cutbacks and closures.

basflt · December 1, 2011

no news to me
this discussion in going in my country for a long time

reason ; modern cameras are good
anyone can make a photo [ P&S , mobile phone ]
a newspaper dont need good quality , they want quantity , as cheap as possible
if they can get their pics cheap or for free , they dont need professionals anymore

angevin1 · December 1, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

Please note that while around 50 "staffers" were let go, 11 of those were photojournalists:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/11/idUS39879393020111111
"Nearly a dozen photojournalists were given pink slips -- four in New York, five in Washington, one in Miami, and one in Los Angeles -- according to an individual with knowledge."
While I cannot condone the action by CNN, it is just a sign of the times.

A few years ago, my former brother-in-law was working for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. He was an assistant editor at the time. Unfortunately, around half of the staff was already let go when he made his decision to take a buy-out and leave voluntarily. He has struggled to find work ever since.

Three years ago there were 2 major newspapers in Denver, CO.; the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post. Early in 2009 the Rocky Mountain News ceased operations and closed their doors, after nearly 150 years of news. (I have a relative who used to work for them.)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/26/rocky-mountain-news-closes-friday-final-edition/

You can find similar stories scattered throughout the USA.

The truth is that newspapers and magazines, TV stations and radio stations, all make make their money from advertisers. Unfortunately advertising budgets for the major clients are dramatically down as the clients find other avenues to sell their goods. Subscriptions, another source of revenue for newspapers and magazines, are also destructively down.

Unless and until the media find new sources of revenue, media will continue to have cutbacks and closures.

You're exactly right. This has been coming and happening for quite a few years. I suspect any PJ that works in this era knows more than we do about it, for their own sake. Still I see it as a normal course. Lots of folks like to blame it on the advancing of the average camera, and that component is a player, but it is really about what you said regarding revenue streams. Advertisers are very busy getting their game-on on a diverse media platform. That will include print media while it exists. More and more dollars have been going to social platforms for a couple of years now.

DavidTO · December 1, 2011

Pulitzer is going to have a bunch of awards sitting around with no one to give them to.

ian408 · December 1, 2011

DavidTO wrote: »

Pulitzer is going to have a bunch of awards sitting around with no one to give them to.

Exactly.

MarkR · December 1, 2011

DavidTO wrote: »

Pulitzer is going to have a bunch of awards sitting around with no one to give them to.

If I'm understanding this announcement correctly, there's no worries ...

ian408 · December 1, 2011

MarkR wrote: »

If I'm understanding this announcement correctly, there's no worries ...

Gotta say that I'm not so sure there are many amateurs capable of making the kind of photos worthy of the Pulitzer. At least not those who are willing to give stuff away.

Snowgirl · December 4, 2011

It's happening around the world and affecting people in all creative endeavours. Here (in Canada) newspapers are doing nothing but rehashing news from other sources and they've cut photographers, writers and editors.

Newspapers and magazines are getting thinner with each successive issue - less advertising and less editorial content. In the case of magazines, many are dying a low death - they just don't realize it yet. The more they cut editorial and quality photography / artwork, the less reasons there are to purchase the publications. Readers buy mags for content, not ads. No readers = no advertisers and the downward spiral continues.

Until recently I made my living as a writer for various publications, particularly horse magazines, across North America. About 10 years ago I started adding photography sales to my articles. Today there is no way I can survive on that income - welfare would pay more. The mags are paying THE SAME or LESS per word/photograph than they were 10, even 15, years ago. Needless to say, all living expenses have increased in the interim.

Studies are being done that do indicate that people (especially younger folks) are getting their news and information electronically from the internet - with little concern as to validity of information - so the entire industry is reconsidering its business model (or should be).

ian408 · December 4, 2011

I think accuracy is a function of what news organizations are putting into articles. I've noticed, especially with business announcements, that most of the content is provided by a business (in the form of a press release) with the reporter throwing in a few things to make it theirs. I do also believe consolidation has hurt the industry as well. For some time now, news papers have been consolidating and sharing stories and format in addition to their OP Ed sections.

It's a tough business and certainly nothing like it was in the glory years.

CNN Fires Photojournalists

Comments