NY Daily News Cuts All Photographers (Page 3): And what happens w. a steady of Fox news?

loosecanon Loc: Central Texas

BamaTexan wrote:

When fed a daily diet of CNN, MSNBC, The NYT, WAPO, ABC, CBS, NBC, Facebook and the like, a person’s cognitive ability is obviously affected negatively.

And what happens w. a steady of Fox news?

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

AndyH wrote:

If you've got a Kardashian in a skimpy outfit on the red carpet, even in a cell phone quality image, why would you care about starving children in some part of the world that most Americans couldn't find on a map, or even pronounce?

The times we live in...

Andy

What a shame!!! It's sad when a person no matter what they do for a living losses a job.

Stephan G

loosecanon wrote:

And what happens w. a steady of Fox news?

Sit on a porcelan throne, "Twitting" away, of course.

Stephan G

BamaTexan wrote:

Maybe you explained it better than me. The media sources just aren't interested in real journalism.

Chuck

More accurately, the ownership of media sources are not interested.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Stephan G wrote:

I miss the days when I scanned and skimmed over a dozen newspapers for over a dozen slants from which to distill a better understanding of an event. Two papers had a distinctly differing editorial boards for their morning vs afternoon issues. Photographs were (and still are) crucial to helping determine the distinction

Me too! But there is still enough variety in viewpoints to get a reasonably comprehensive look across the spectrum. Actually, it may even be a little easier with electronic versions of most everything available online for a modest subscription. I find myself reading more opinion pieces than ever, and decent news coverage of international affairs is at an all time high in both quantity and quality, in my opinion. I'm politically liberal, but I find no shortage of legitimate sources of conservative opinion and viewpoints without ever tuning in to the blonde talking heads of Fox.

I'm sad to see the passing of the print world, but like many other artifacts of the past, it is inevitable. My local daily in Worcester used to have morning and afternoon editions, with independent staffs and (theoretically) editorial boards. They were owned by a local family - the publisher was a founder of the John Birch society, so their editorial views were pretty far to the right. Nevertheless, they were the newspaper of record and their coverage of local issues throughout the county was solid - with over a dozen local news bureaus. They were sold to the San Francisco Chronicle, to Red Sox owner John Henry, then to the NYT, then to Halifax Media, which is now a division of New Media Investment Group. Each new ownership cut staff dramatically, and what was often a four section bundle in my youth is now one section, generally 12 pages. Circulation peaked in the 1970s, I think, at about 170,000. By 1999 it had dipped under 100,000 and it averages about 70,000 today. Their paywall site has less than half that, mostly in the form of joint paper/electronic subscriptions.They've gone from four daily columnists to one, and the reporting staff is now single digits. Content is largely fluff, and they are down to one photographer and a few stringers. This is a story that can apply to many other papers.

My subscriptions are now down to the New Yorker magazine, and two digital edition national dailies, one liberal and one conservative. I e-scribe to the tiny daily in the town I live in, and our office subscribes to the Worcester daily print edition so I generally get a chance to read it.

When I open my browser each morning, whatever general website I open to -- Yahoo, MSN, etc. - at least half the stories are ads or clickbait. You have to dive a little deeper to find legitimate news sources, but it's out there.

Andy

Stephan G

Starphotog wrote:

For instance, I covered a republican rally during ... (show quote)

As one trained in handling riots, I will state that you make an error when using number of bodies to determine popularity. I have seen what a "packed to the gills" crowd is capable of doing. Many extremist groups prefer "packed" crowds for a reason.

I, for one, request from you a better description as to your basis for comparison. All the "W"s of Journalism.

Stephan G

AndyH wrote:

Me too! But there is still enough variety in viewpoints to get a reasonably comprehensive look across the spectrum. Actually, it may even be a little easier with electronic versions of most everything available online for a modest subscription. I find myself reading more opinion pieces than ever, and decent news coverage of international affairs is at an all time high in both quantity and quality, in my opinion. I'm politically liberal, but I find no shortage of legitimate sources of conservative opinion and viewpoints without ever tuning in to the blonde talking heads of Fox.

I'm sad to see the passing of the print world, but like many other artifacts of the past, it is inevitable. My local daily in Worcester used to have morning and afternoon editions, with independent staffs and (theoretically) editorial boards. They were owned by a local family - the publisher was a founder of the John Birch society, so their editorial views were pretty far to the right. Nevertheless, they were the newspaper of record and their coverage of local issues throughout the county was solid - with over a dozen local news bureaus. They were sold to the San Francisco Chronicle, to Red Sox owner John Henry, then to the NYT, then to Halifax Media, which is now a division of New Media Investment Group. Each new ownership cut staff dramatically, and what was often a four section bundle in my youth is now one section, generally 12 pages. Circulation peaked in the 1970s, I think, at about 170,000. By 1999 it had dipped under 100,000 and it averages about 70,000 today. Their paywall site has less than half that, mostly in the form of joint paper/electronic subscriptions.They've gone from four daily columnists to one, and the reporting staff is now single digits. Content is largely fluff, and they are down to one photographer and a few stringers. This is a story that can apply to many other papers.

My subscriptions are now down to the New Yorker magazine, and two digital edition national dailies, one liberal and one conservative. I e-scribe to the tiny daily in the town I live in, and our office subscribes to the Worcester daily print edition so I generally get a chance to read it.

When I open my browser each morning, whatever general website I open to -- Yahoo, MSN, etc. - at least half the stories are ads or clickbait. You have to dive a little deeper to find legitimate news sources, but it's out there.

Andy

Me too! But there is still enough variety in viewp... (show quote)

The well is drying up rather quickly.

I hope that you do check out the "sources" of your news as to their sources.

I find that many foreign (country and language) sources are shrinking as well.

It is my understanding that there is a push to merge the top two sources of most news.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Stephan G wrote:

The well is drying up rather quickly.

I hope that you do check out the "sources" of your news as to their sources.

I find that many foreign (country and language) sources are shrinking as well.

It is my understanding that there is a push to merge the top two sources of most news.

I think the well may be deeper but it's far from dry. And as a former reporter and long time activist, I check and compare sources on just about everything.

Andy

EdJ0307 Loc: out west someplace

BboH wrote:

Yeah, print news seems to be on unsteady legs - Damn shame.
FWIW - I subscribe to WSJ, Wash. Times, Balto. Sun and local Catonsville Times. Have done so for years and will continue until I can't.

When we moved to this small town 12 years ago the local paper printed seven editions a week. After a few years they cut it down to five a week but went back up to six a little later. Just this month they have cut it back to only two editions a week, Tuesday and Saturday. It will be interesting to see how that works out. I hope they plan on reducing the monthly subscription rate to reflect the reduced number of papers we receive. I have been paying over $18 a month for the subscription. However, if I start buying it on the news stand it will cost $12/month.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

The situation as envisioned by the founders was multiple independent publishers. Naturally each publisher will have his own slant but given multiple sources, all the views are covered. Today in the US we have a couple large corporations controlling 98% of the news, and unfortunately we don't get all the different views, we get two. However we do have access to global news. It's informative to read foreign papers reporting on things happening in the US.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

JD750 wrote:

The situation as envisioned by the founders was multiple independent publishers. Naturally each publisher will have his own slant but given multiple sources, all the views are covered. Today in the US we have a couple large corporations controlling 98% of the news, and unfortunately we don't get all the different views, we get two. However we do have access to global news. It's informative to read foreign papers reporting on things happening in the US.

to that...

Andy

ronichas Loc: Long Island

Hey, EVERYONE is now a photographer. People submit photos for free, why should papers/magazines/etc pay?

BamaTexan Loc: Deep in the heart of Texas

loosecanon wrote:

And what happens w. a steady of Fox news?

Brilliance 😁

retina_reflex Loc: Los Angeles

Sorry, but I disagree completely. Newspaper photo people shoot assignments. They don't have an agenda, they just shoot pictures. That system hasn't changed in over 100 years.

loosecanon Loc: Central Texas

retina_reflex wrote:

Sorry, but I disagree completely. Newspaper photo people shoot assignments. They don't have an agenda, they just shoot pictures. That system hasn't changed in over 100 years.

Exactly.