🚀 go-pugleaf

-----Original Message-----
From:   Jeff Broddle

My view on this is that ultimately you have to go along with the wants of
your publisher, or feel free to move on to another paper that doesn't make
you shoot for advertisers.
Overall, though, I think that some publishers just don't realize their
shooters are photoJOURNALISTS and not photographers.
>>

Ahhhh ... here's the rub.
How often have you seen an job posting that actually says the paper is
looking for a photojournalist? I'd wager that less than 20% of jobs are
titled 'photojournalist', and that fewer postings are looking for a
'photojournalist.'

Many ads look for 'a talented photojournalist' as a requirement for the
photographer job. What they are looking for is a photographer who can work
well as a photojournalist when called on. Multi-tasking is a fact of life
these days, and just about every non-metro paper I've seen has some ad work
done by the editorial staff.

My first paper produced supplements galore, including advertorials written
by the reporters, and subject to proofing by the advertisers. The Ads were
actually sold under the scheme of 'buy this ad, and a story will be written
by our reporters.' This lead to barrels of OT, and I am sure if they
actually put the cost of the resources involved they'd see it was a money
loosing venture ... but that's off track.

>>Does it seem fair to get your hourly wage for making a nice photo for XYZ
Company's $900 ad?>>

Does it seem fair to do the job asked of you at the wage you agreed on?

>>And businesses should not be allowed to take the images shot by a
newspaper
staffer and use them anywhere else.>>

Both dailies I worked at had an open door policy for the AD dept, allowing
them to raid the editorial files for pictures as needed.
Ultimately, many papers have to cater to the will of the advertisers, and
offer services and deals to get the business. If that means asking a
company photographer to do a job or two for another department instead of
driving aimlessly around town ... so be it.

Generally, people today are hired as Photographers (or
reporter/photographers) and you do work for the company as a whole, and you
generally do NOT own the images. That's the big trade off for the security
of a staff job - such that it is.

This harkens back to my old line that there is a difference between a news
photographer and a photojournalist. (Some people are offended at the idea,
thinking I am calling down News Photographers - I'm not, it is just
different sets of skills and different 'goals.')


>>A newspaper should know better than to give away its stuff for free.
Apparently some don't.>>

The key point. A hungry society and a declining advertising dollar has
pushed newspapers to keep on cutting deals  to the point where they do
start giving away services like photography. Certainly in smaller markets
the idea that a picture should cost $50, let alone $200 over and above the
cost of the AD wouldn't fly ...

The only real solution to the problem is to realise that you work for the
newspaper, not the newsroom. If the Ad dept. has asked for your services
and they have been given - smile and do YOUR JOB as best you can. If you
feel that the decisions of upper management are excessively compromising
your ethics or sensibilities ... leave.

I suffered through years and years of this 'selling out' at the hands of
dollar minded publishers and advertising departments ... and due to a bad
attitude was involuntarily freed.

After a few twists and turns I am now working for the worst boss yet - I am
self employed as a freelance photographer. Some might even say I am an
unemployed Prima-donna but I wouldn't go that far.


Cheers,

Keith Morison