Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi I think that this discussion really indicates that we need a new definition of what a 'journalist' really is and what the 'press' really is. While, in theory, I quite agree that, when a photographer is working for a news publication/agency he/she can be deemed to be a PJ and enjoy various rights above those of a PR photographer, I think that the lines have become very ill-defined. When a photographer works for Time magazine he is deemed to be a PJ but Time magazine has become, largely, a shameless PR and marketing tool for AOL Time Warner's commercial products. So where do we draw the line? If I do work for the Christian Science Monitor am I a PR to the CS or am I a journalist? I suppose it depends what is being covered? If Greenpeace uses the photos in its own environmental issues newspaper and supplies them to third parties through its own agency, how much does this differ from Time magazine running a story on AOL, Warner Bros latest film, or about CNN? The great danger with the commercialisation and globalisation of the big newspapers and magazines that has taken place is that the line between journalism and pr has become very difficult to define indeed. Also, when the majority of news publications are in the hands of a very few very wealthy and diversified companies, they are unlikely to tell all the stories that should be told. Given the choice between sending someone to cover a Greenpeace story or the opening of a motorshow most, including the likes of Time, are likely to choose the motorshow. So, where does that leave organisations like Greenpeace? Just a few thoughts to ponder Harold - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html