#0
It's been interesting to watch what the "professional" journalists think of citizen journalism. So far, all I have seen is the sour grapes attitude that somehow the citizen journalist is not capable of producing good work.
The following link is an editorial that I think points this out quite well. It is also, in my opinion, a good lesson for citizen journalists. We must all strive to produce the best WRITING we can. The photographer on Demotix have proved to be quite capable. Now it's time to hone the writing skills that make a "compleat" journalist.
Please read this and make it your rallying cry to do the best you can. If it were up to the "professional media" they would ostracize all citizen journalists and especially those with Demotix.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0912/lets-abolish-citizen-journalists.html
It only serves to show how well Demotix is doing its job!
I do not entirely agree with your point of view.
To me a photojournalist job is to make persuasive images and not to write articles.
Only a small percentage of AP, Reuters photographers or Magnum photographers are writing stories along with their images.
With the papers I was involved in the photojournalists only had to take notes of basic information to go along with the captions.
I personally enjoy writing but I do no think a photojournalist is incomplete without writing his own articles.
Photojournalism is a completely separate career from a Journalist but I guess the two can overlap very well. Even the top US universities such as UC Berkeley have a dedicated degree program in the discipline of photojournalism.
Maybe I missed a point here. Has Demotix actually sold any stories where an entire article was written with it by the photographer?
Best,
Ingmar
Point taken. I am only saying that a photographer who can add writing to his repertoire increases his value. Whether or not Demotix has sold an attendant article with the photographs is not the point. (That is another subject all together).
But, as Robert Frost once observed "Not rhyming in poetry is like playing tennis with the net down." While T.S. Eliott might have disagreed, my point is simply added value and I did not mean to imply otherwise.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Hugh
The difference is pro photojournalists are able to produce reportages on the spot and getting clients that pay for it and they do this full time.
Anyone can make one good reportage, but only pros do it as a job.
Coming from (macro) stock photography i see many analogies with the Flickrs vs the pro stockers.
Frankly speaking, these discussions are going nowhere : medias are just interested in publishing what they need, no matter if it's AP/Reuters or Demotix.
The promising thing about this agency is i heard they sell and they pay on time, so deal done.
I just joined today and i'll soon upload my stories.
Wish me luck ,
Marco
I totally agree with Igmar . As photojournalists we tell the story with our photos, the written part is background information and certainly not contentious. This however does mean that not all stories are well suited for photojournalism and it also does mean that we have to be there (ideally) from the beginning until the end. Unlike the main media who only need a shot or two of the event to accompany the written story.
Lawmoment - Lawrence also on my website www.lawmoment.com
I have always found the dichotomy between photographer and journalist to be a false one. What better way to represent a story, news oreintated or otherwise, than with words and images? And if that is the case, and you are lucky enough to be equally talented in both areas, why not photograph a story and write the accompanying text?
I find it strange that there are several photographers above who take the puritanical stance that a photojournalist must make do only with captions and not stray into the forbidden realm of the writer.
I for one am just as passionate about writing as I am taking photographs, and I can think of nothing more natural than covering an event and fulfilling both elements of the story.
If, for your own reasons, you only wish to photograph a story and tell it via the images, or have someone else provide the written half, this is perfectly legitimate, but do not imply that we as photojournalists are breaking an unwriten rule by adding a written element to our stories.
Back to the original point of the thread, I have experienced very similar sentiment from professional journalists with regards to citizen journalsim. I am studying photojournalsim at university, and the course is obviously set up to push people towards a proffesional career at a newspaper or such, but I am reluctant to move into one of those environments.
I became interested in independent media not long after first picking up a camera, and I acted as a very amateur journalist, photographing protests and marches and posting them online or sending them to relevant campaign groups so that they may use them.
It is amateur behaviour of the kind I took part in when I was younger and more naive that has given citizen journalism a bad name. Too many would-be journalist provide no background, no context and no follow-up. I agree with a large portion of the criticism of citizen journalism in the link provided, but independent media is something I truley believe has potential, but we must all strive to make our work of a higher quality, because without the argument of lack of quality, how will professionals be able to criticize us?
I think Hugh makes a good point when it comes to writing. It is very easy now to take a good photograph, and many untrained photographers can happen upon a great capture, this is not to say we should throw down our cameras, but it has certainly raised the bar. But writing is still a skill that cannot be happend upon or come about as the result of luck, and we should use that to our advantage.
"How baffling it was that even the most cunning and clever people would frequently see only what they wanted to see, and would rarely look beyond the thinnest of facades. Or they would ignore reality, dismissing it as the facade."-Toranaga, Shogun.
I am in an interesting position though, cause I had been worked as a student journalist, a journalist in a newspaper and now I am working for Demotix.
When I was working in the newspaper I was print guy(my main duty) as well as a photojournalist(my interest). The experience is unforgotable.
In one minute I am taking notes of what politicans said and filed stories back to the newsroom, in the next minute I had to rush out of the parliament to shoot pictures of protests.
So I think the roles of a print journalist and a photojournalist are not mutually exclusive, but I got to admit that you cant work well in the two positions.
As a student journalist I was looked down by nearly everyone in the business, from journalist to press officer- this was where I felt the sour grapes attitude.
When I said I am working as a citizen journalist they looked at me like an alien, but not teasing me though.
Anyway after a certain period of time I think I will move back to mainstream media.
Clearly, writing for a foreign language would be a different scenario altogether, but I was refering to a photojournalist writing in his or her own native tongue.
Am I really the only person who belives its a good thing to write as well as photograph?
"How baffling it was that even the most cunning and clever people would frequently see only what they wanted to see, and would rarely look beyond the thinnest of facades. Or they would ignore reality, dismissing it as the facade."-Toranaga, Shogun.
Ofcourse this is the main thrust behind Demotix, and I will concede the point that those who cannot speak English are not going to be able to translate an article quick enough for it to make it into an English written journal, but presumably an article writen in their own language has viablility within their own country at the very least?
I am also unsure whether Demotix can or should compete with the likes of Reuters. A big part of what attracted me to this website in the first place was that I considered it to have a different angle on news to agencies such as PA, AP etc. I think one of the philosophies behind the creation of Demotix was to be "at the cross-roads of activism and journalism", and I think this participatory nature is what makes it better than other picture agencies.
I am aware that this is only my understanding of how Demotix works, and how I work on it. There are as many approaches to truth telling on Demotix as there are truth tellers, that is it's main strength.
I think we have moved behind my original point when I first posted on this thread, which was; all other things being equal, why were there so many responses saying a photographer should not try to write? Provided it is not taken for a substitute for good photography timely uploaded on to the internet. A story can always be added after the photos.
"How baffling it was that even the most cunning and clever people would frequently see only what they wanted to see, and would rarely look beyond the thinnest of facades. Or they would ignore reality, dismissing it as the facade."-Toranaga, Shogun.
In that case I agree, if you are aiming to break into the English speaking press then it would simply be an extra obsatcle to try to write and translate a story if you do not speak the language.
Good luck, Peter.
"How baffling it was that even the most cunning and clever people would frequently see only what they wanted to see, and would rarely look beyond the thinnest of facades. Or they would ignore reality, dismissing it as the facade."-Toranaga, Shogun.
Well the replies to the article that you have mentioned said a lot of what i would think about the issue concerning the term 'citizen journalist'. But some 'rants' within it are inevitably true: it takes hardwork and integrity to get credentials.
About the separation of 'classification' between 'journalist' and 'photojournalist' well if we can do both worlds, then by all means, we should, but practically, i assume it would distract the workflow of most photojournalists and the time constrain of when the photos can be considered relevant, which is 'now' --- or some other time unforseen. At the very least 'photojournalist' should come to understand of what it is that they are shooting, the basic 5w 1h (am i correct here?) should help for counterfacts.
But the are always chances where good writing and good pictures could come together, like when we do features or our own photo project.
The way i see it, demotix is more of a photo agency then stories, with a little bit of basic english anybody in the world have the chance to sell their editorial photos here (sadly, no indonesian buyers). Be it as it may, i think everyone should opt to make positive impacts through this outlet. Good writings accompanying good pictures should define journalism, not the ever debatable issue of 'fake' versus 'true' journalists.
