Why Murdoch Running NatGeo Is Poison For What's Left Of Photojournalism - DeSmog Blog

[hatrack]

EDIT

Photo editors rely heavily on photo agencies because not only are they faced with a shrinking staff, but also shrinking budgets for freelancers. It is common practice for photo editors to select an image connected to a topic, even if it was shot at a different time or place than the chosen photo is supposed to represent. For example, The Guardian licensed a photograph from Corbis Images that I shot in 2012 of a barrier island in Louisiana’s Barrataria Bay to illustrate a story about coastal erosion in 2014. The photo shows birds on healthy mangrove trees in a bird rookery.


Barrier Island in Cat Bay known as Cat Island, June 16, 2012. A photo published by the Guardian in 2014 ©Julie Dermansky

The report, published on October 14, 2014, makes no mention that the photo was taken in 2012, and gives a false impression of what the island looked like at that time. I reshot the same location for a DeSmog report in the spring of 2013. My photos show by 2013, the island’s mangrove trees were dead. The island written about was in much worse state than the photo used to illustrate the situation.


Barrier Island in Cat Bay known as Cat Island, September 27, 2013, A photo published by DeSmog in 2013. ©Julie Dermansky

The Guardian’s choice to use my image taken a couple of years before cost them a tiny fraction of what it would have cost to hire a photojournalist to shoot a new image. Opting not to hire professional photojournalists saves money, but it can cost consumers in terms of quality, authenticity and accuracy.

When Getty Images, the largest source for stock news photos worldwide, was purchased by the Carlyle Group, media critics took notice, but little was written about it. The Carlyle Group is an investment firm that owns a stake in the energy company Kinder Morgan, and in Booz Allen Hamilton, a management consulting firm that counts the U.S. Department of Defense among its clients. Can Carlyle influence what Getty Images chooses to add to its photo stock? If so, Hartley pointed out, it has the power to control the media by omitting images. Not only do mainstream media rely on Getty and other stock agencies that offer inexpensive images, alternative media sources, including DeSmog, use stock images, too.

EDIT

Few media consumers are aware of what has been lost. But if you pay attention to the credits under photographs, you will notice many are supplied by Getty and other photo agencies, rather than a staff member or freelancer shooting on behalf of the media source. “Good enough is good enough today,” award winning photojournalist, Kenneth Jarecke, told DeSmog. “That was not the standard publications were after 15 years ago.” Photojournalists must adhere to a code of ethics that prohibits them from setting up shots and altering a photograph after the fact. While amateur photographers have nothing at stake if they don’t follow basic photojournalistic guidelines, a professional caught breaking the rules loses his or her professional standing.

“There was a code for photo editors too,” Jarecke said, “A photo editor could loose their job for using images out of context.” But the standards in the industry have dropped so much that for some it is acceptable to publish work found on social media that hasn’t been verified, he explained.

EDIT

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/10/08/why-sale-national-geographic-fox-should-focus-everyone-s-minds-value-photojournalism

[GliderGuider]

1. I spent almost 20 years working as a photojournalist in the 70s and 80s

The NatGeo photographers were some of my greatest influences. I've been watching the tragedy of stock photography unfold ever since, and it is a great weight on my heart. From media consolidation and the gutting of standards, to the embedding of war correspondents and the prohibition of photographic documentation of environmental and animal-rights abuses, the visuals available to the public are being very carefully managed to present a worldview favourable to the powers that be.

The prioritization of image management, more even than text management, speaks to the psychological awareness of those charged with managing our perceptions. Unlike text, whose meaning requires interpretation by the language centers of our brains, images require much less mental pre-processing. Their meaning is instantly and directly available to our emotional limbic systems. This makes images many times more powerful than text - which incidentally helps to explain the social power of TV compared to newspapers.

When images presents an unpalatable truth, their power represents a dire threat to those at the tip of the social hierarchy - those very people who have the financial means necessary to consolidate and groom the image stream available to the public.

[hatrack]

2. What do humans respond to, in order of effectiveness of a medium?

1. Image
2. Color
3. Shape












4. Printed Words (and the gap is there very much for a reason).

[BlueJazz]

3. After reading the article (and your post). I feel sad/bad for all the talented and resourceful ...

..photographers that society will lose simply because there will be no jobs for them. True, they'll still have their talents and such but that doesn't pay the bills. I'm just an amateur astrophotographer but I can imagine seeing your job taken over by stock photos and non-professional workers.

My other thoughts are the prices of fine quality equipment could go up since the fact that why spend the thousands of dollars for top cameras and such when a person knows they won't have a job to support the costs?

Please correct me if I'm wrong..

[eppur_se_muova]

4. Bought by Carlyle ? Let's not forget where the tentacles of that octopus reach ...

It's practically a former President's (and PM's) boys club, with plenty to gain by perpetuation of the status quo:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/31/september11.usa4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carlyle_Group#Notable_employees_and_advisors

[starroute]

5. I've been noticing this a lot lately, and it bugs the hell out of me

I see it particularly at The Guardian's US edition -- where you'd really hope they'd know better. And what it seems to amount to, besides lazy journalism, is squeezing the human and emotional elements out of stories and lessening their impact.

Here's a current story about increasing numbers of Americans accepting the reality of climate change: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/13/rising-numbers-of-american-believe-climate-science-poll-shows

It's illustrated by a photo of two girls walking past an Assembly of God church. The photo is connected with the California water shortages -- but you wouldn't know that without reading the caption. And it has no direct relationship to anything in the story.

Here's a story about a pending merger in the beer industry and its likely negative impact on consumers. It's illustrated by a picture of two six-packs. Nothing to remind you of monopolistic practices, exploitation of third world beer drinkers, or much of anything, really. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/13/sabmiller-agrees-ab-inbev-takeover-68bn

Here's one titled "Credit scores in America perpetuate racial injustice." It's illustrated by a photo of a credit report. Once again, the human impact has been left out entirely. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/13/your-credit-score-is-racist-heres-why

This is nothing-to-see-here-move-on journalism. And it sucks.

[Nihil]

6. This thread is a real eye-opener ...

... both the OP and the replies have added knowledge that I simply was not aware of
but which, as stated, helps to explain the steering of the public knowledge/understanding
of situations so well.

Even just those two photos in the OP extract show the difference that such a decision
can have on the perception of the article - and that's without getting into whether or not
the writing of the article is slanted (or just plain sloppy).

Thanks for posting it.