The Night Chicago Died: Photojournalism Dealt Mortal Blow
"In the heat of a summer night
In the land of the dollar bill
When the town of Chicago died
And they talk about it still"
Paper Lace
Last week, the sun went down in Chicago – and on journalism. Twenty-eight photographers, the entire photo staff, were let go by the Chicago Sun-Times. Apparently the layoffs were a decision by the newspaper's management to move toward more online video. The paper went on to announce that they would now be relying on reporters to take photos and video. But, staff writers needn't worry, the paper also announced they will begin providing training in the use of iPhone photography basics.
OK, something is definitely wrong with this picture. Oh, I forgot, pictures have become irrelevant for print media.
Don't get me wrong. I love my iPhone and the photos it takes. I use it all of the time to take pictures of my grandkids or vacation scenery so I can post them on Facebook for friends to see. I even use it to take shots at a client event that I can drop into a presentation for a client meeting. But iPhone photos for journalism?
This move by the Sun-Times is baffling for many reasons.
For one, does management really believe reporters will be able to replace photographers and videographers? That's asking a lot of reporters. Not to be cynical, but I doubt that the newspaper will increase reporters' salaries because of the additional work that's being asked of them. There's also the question of the reporter's abilities and divided interest. Will they want to focus on shooting quality photos or video while simultaneously trying to get the necessary facts and quotes for a story? Seriously, how do you juggle that? My guess is everything will suffer. The reporter will not be able to write a story that is factual and thorough, and the photos taken, if they're able to get them, will lack any depth, quality lighting and composition or human interest.
Second, while there are certainly reporters out there who may also be capable of taking good photos, there are many who are not – or who don't really care to be photographers. They have chosen writing as their profession, not photography.
Third, and perhaps more importantly, while reporters and photographers both are journalists, they concentrate on different aspects of a story. They think about it differently. Reporters think in words. They're concerned about getting good quotes from people involved in the story being covered. They're looking for additional facts or pieces of information to provide substance to the article they're writing. Photographers look at things visually. They look for shots that capture the essence of the story unfolding – shots of the joy or pain in people's faces, of a bridge collapsing, of a sunset over Lake Michigan – larger than life, permanent and still.
This isn't to put down video. As a medium, it's also important content and can be very engaging, helping provide another way of looking at a story, another insight into the story that words alone can't express. But good photography is powerful and can bring a story to life in ways that video footage often can't.
James Nachtwey, a noted photojournalist and war photographer, is quoted as saying, "Photography can put a human face on a situation that would otherwise remain abstract or merely statistical.
Photography can become a part of our collective consciousness and our collective conscience."
But perhaps Henry Cartier-Bresson, a French photographer considered to be the father of modern photojournalism, said it best. "For me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a split second, of the importance of an event, as well as the exact organization of the shapes giving that event its appropriate expression."
Enough said.
To get our latest articles when they are posted, please subscribe by e-mail or RSS.
