Citizen Journalist or Unpaid Freelancers?

Watching coverage of the California wildfires made me wonder if all the videos and photographs sent to television stations and newspapers by “citizen journalists” is the way news organizations are supplanting photojournalism and further diluting the ability of professionals to make a living.

A company called NowPublic is growing in leaps and bounds and has nearly 120,000 contributing "reporters" in more than 140 countries. Their idea is to let anyone with a digital camera or camera-enabled mobile to upload images or news to be disseminated through the Internet.

"I promise you, in 18 months NowPublic will be, by reach, the largest news agency in the world," start-up co-founder Len Brody told AFP.

Right now no one is paid for their material, while the company gets most of its money from syndicating the content and charging fees to connect news organizations and the “citizen journalists.”

“Citizen Journalists” are the new “Unpaid Freelancers.” Newspapers, television stations and wire services are getting more material without having to hire and pay people to do the work. Who is making the money here and what happens to professional photographers when the value of their work is devalued by free contributions from the general public. And while some may have talent, most seem to have the urge to hear or see their names publicly associated with their work. It’s the same thing that makes people want to be on TV—it’s their shot of fame making them instant celebrities, if only to their family and friends.

Are people being paid for their material, and if so, how much? Are they signing contracts relinquishing all rights to the media entities?

Quality is already taking a backset to immediacy. I suppose that was inevitable with better and better camera phones, but where is the dedication to quality when everyone and their brother can send news photos to be seen everywhere you look?

The entire world is at risk for becoming unpaid freelancers for the big media owners? Is that what was meant by the formerly ubiquitous phrase “Freelance Nation?” I guess it’s now “ Free Freelance World.”

I think it’s fantastic that people can document what is happening where they are as it’s happening and transmit it to the entire world. What isn’t fantastic is the paradigm that all is for free while the big media rakes in the dough. When people risk their lives, spend their own monies, have to protect their own health while others reap the rewards, there is something very wrong.

Refuse to work for free. Refuse to give away all of the rights to your work. Tell others to do the same. I will be writing more about the proliferation of free contributions to media in a future entry. As long as there are people who don’t ask for or don’t care about making money from their work, being pacified by seeing their name is print on TV as payment, everyone who works professionally is at risk of losing their livelihood.

What Makes a Real Photographer?

An interesting situation came up during my class for photographers recently. One photographer was showing her new work to the group, and we all loved one of her photos in particular. Then she admitted that she had Photoshopped the exact part we all loved so much.

It occurred to me that since Photoshop has become ubiquitous in our industry no one thinks twice about tweaking his or her images. If it’s contrast or sharpness I suppose that’s a minor thing, but when actual composition is changed with technology shouldn’t there be a disclaimer to that effect?

If I was a photo editor looking at a portfolio with several Photoshopped images (assuming I either couldn’t tell, or wasn’t savvy enough to realize it), and I assigned that photographer, how would I deal with the final untouched product, as it would not reflect the work I had seen?

Since magazines usually want raw files (they do their own retouching, and don’t want anything major done to a photographer’s files without prior approval), there would be no way to hide the difference. Anyone with technical prowess can now create a fantastic portfolio that has no basis in reality. So anyone can be a fantastic photographer.

What happens to reality then?

If every photo you take is tweaked (facial blemishes erased, awkward backgrounds changed, etc.) how can we trust not only what we are seeing, but also the ability of the photographer themselves?

It is supposedly common knowledge that in photojournalism, in news photography, one never works on their image. But then how do we explain the most recent incidents at the Toledo Blade, The New York Times and People magazine, where images were altered by either the photographer, or in the case of People, the director of photography. If this happens in the realm of sacred news reporting, why can’t magazine photographers (portraitists, still life shooters, etc.) feel they can make any changes they want to their own images?

Again I ask, what happens to reality?

We know by now that magazines alter images all the time—they clean up faces, make celebrities thinner, change clothing color, silhouette backgrounds, etc. But if individual photographers are now doing these things in order to present their work in what they think is it’s best light, there is no reality. Everyone will be made to look “perfect,” every moment will be cleaned up (after all, reality is messy and unpredictable), and we will continue to speed towards a time where no one sees themselves in the world anymore, because real people and real situations are never perfect.

What makes a true photographer is the ability to solve the creative problem of making an image compelling. If you can be a lousy shooter, figuring it can all be fixed in Photoshop, then who really is a photographer anymore?