Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/09/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] PJ standards -- Like Caesar's wife
From: Afterswift@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:28:35 EDT

In a message dated 9/1/03 3:05:22 AM, royfphoto@aol.com writes:

<<  A couple of the fellows said that 
as a result of recent meetings that they were no longer allowed to shoot 
a shot that was set up (even though this was hardly breaking news). A 
few months ago this would not have even been brought up.
Good for them and the editors that instructed them. There have been some 
bad lapses in judgment lately but there is a pretty strong desire to 
correct these through self-policeing.
Roy Feldman >>
- -------------------------------------------------------------
Roy,

What has a true news organization got to sell? It's not only information. 
It's credibility. Why should I spend a buck everyday to buy The Times if I doubt 
the authenticity of what the writers or photographers produce? I might as well 
read one of the supermarket tabloids. I was appalled when the NYT went 
completely digital in news. I still think that was a serious mistake. They even 
closed their darkroom, one of the best in NYC. I could understand using digital 
for international reporting, because that's the only way to be competitive. But 
for local news and feature stories I see no advantage in using digital 
cameras. For a newspaper of record, that newspaper should keep a record of its raw 
material -- for at least its photos. What good is an archive if it's digital 
files are not only volatile but corruptible intentionally or otherwise. 

br 
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Dan C <leicaman@sympatico.ca> (RE: [Leica] PJ standards -- Like Caesar's wife)