Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/07/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Bill, Boy you hit several things right on the head. Editors in todays media do sit and watch the "news" as it happens and you better damn well have what they saw on TV or have a good explanation as to why you do not have it. I used to have a sports editor who would ask for a specific play they had seen on ESPN. Boy was it fun when I went to UPI and got to move a photo because it was the best image that told the story of the game and not because some wordsmith had seen it "Live on ESPN"! I think this attitude contributes more to the gang mentality of the media, and is why it is so hard to get find a well rounded media outlet. I also once was in a meeting at a paper I was interviewing for a job with when the executative editor said I don't care what is the truth....we will tell them (the readers) what we want them to know. I turned this job down and that paper went bankrupt in 2 years, but this fool is still working in one of this nations largest newspaper chains. One thing I used my "southern accent" for was to put off the other photographers at major news and sporting events. If they think you are some hick who is lucky to get an image in focus they will not look where you are going when you wander off from the pack to get a different angle that scoops the hell out of what the "gang" is getting. Of course this is harder to do now that I shoot with Leica, people tend to think if you have one of these you must be half way intelligent of maybe just rich. :) Harrison McClary http://people.delphi.com/hmphoto - ---------- > Sorry, after 20-plus years in the news business, I can't resist the opportunity >to blame it on the editors! > But I mean this seriously. Several posts have mentioned the impact of TV. >Another impact is that because TV images are ubiquitous, our own editors devalue the >business of gathering the words and pictures. They won't admit it, of course. But they >sit at their desks and watch events unfold on CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN or whatever, just as >average viewers do. And then it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that represents >the entire story. Well, the TV folks can do the best job in the world, and they still >haven't reflected the full story like a good writer and photographer on the ground can >do, without the TV gear and the constraints of airtime. But too often these days, >editors just want confirmation of the take they got off the tube. Or worse, they don't >want to consider the story if it isn't already on their radar screen because they saw it >on TV.