Journalism Institute Diminishes Importance of Photojournalism

The Poynter Institute bills itself as a global leader in journalism. For decades, journalists have turned to the Florida-based organization's workshops, resources, and staff to learn about and advance journalism. For a time, that seemed to include the visuals side as well, but if a recent article and the furor around it is any indication, it looks like photojournalists are no longer welcome to the party. It's a sad development to see unfold, and it's not a good look for the storied journalism institution.

The featured image at the top of this story was taken in the community of Roxbury, part of the Breezy Point cooperative a couple of days after hurricane Sandy. To get this photo, I had to navigate a gas shortage, use several forms of public transportation that weren’t fully operational, and, finally, hitchhike the last leg of the trip because there was no easy way to get there. Much of the cooperative burned down and the rest was underwater. I worked hard to gain the trust of the community and create photographs, even as some members yelled at me about not wanting “Muslims” in their neighborhood.

All of this effort and expertise, according to this recent Poynter article I mentioned, is worth nothing.

To be clear, I’m taking the least charitable interpretation one can take of the article in which two writers for the esteemed journalism institute banter back and forth about how writers can acquire free photos to use at the top of their written stories, to avoid “articles without images [that] show up as boring texts blocks that few will see and even fewer will click through...”

To sum up what this sounds like to us photojournalists: images are important to make people read articles, but not as important as words, and certainly not important enough to hire actual photojournalists to make pictures. Pay the word people, screw the photographers, it seems that Poynter reporters Ren LaForme and Kristen Hare are saying.

For an organization that says its “role in elevating journalism and the people it serves has never been more critical,” it’s clear that they have carried over the traditional newsroom bias against photojournalists, viewing their role as secondary to that of writers. Photographers have always suspected it, but Poynter makes it loud and clear.

Poynter’s Non-Apology Apology

This is probably a good point to mention that Poynter and I go way back. I have many friends that have worked at or with the institute. I’ve been featured in web chats about online portfolios and visual storytelling in 2010 and 2011. I’ve used many of their resources in my own classroom to teach students about journalism. An apologetic response, and a real recognition of the problems with this article would go a long way towards restoring my faith in Poynter as an institution. But that’s not the case.

In an initial string of tweets, Poynter acknowledged that they “struck a raw nerve” with photojournalists. Not an apology, but an okay start. But then the tweets start to turn photographers into the “other.” With this tweet, Poynter seems to not realize that photojournalists and reporters are journalists all the same:

So let’s talk about this. We want to acknowledge your anger and your concerns. We’ve worked with you. We’ve seen you have to juggle 12 assignments in a day. We’ve seen your colleagues get laid off. We’ve seen space shrink for displaying your work.

— Poynter (@Poynter) February 9, 2018

And instead of advocating for photographers, they seem to throw up their hands and say, “that’s just the way it is – deal with it!”

But here’s the thing … There is a reality about producing work in the digital space. We’re all having to find a way to impart information on platforms that demand visuals to be noticed.

— Poynter (@Poynter) February 9, 2018

If you read the piece and take it for what we intended it to be — a solution to a problem that’s being felt acutely by web and social media editors in the digital age with diminishing resources — it’s just that and no more.

— Poynter (@Poynter) February 9, 2018

You can see why photographers would still be upset in Poynter's almost defensive response to the article.

The Responses

The next day, Poynter’s president, Neil Brown, wrote about the response to the article. While he acknowledged the pitfalls in using stock photography (unknown provenance, unknown copyright, unrelated photos, etc.), there was nothing at all mentioning that the article from Hare and LaForme was damaging to photojournalism. In fact, he opined that articles online need art more than ever, and the piece helped writers to get that, never mind the fact that it showed a blatant disregard for the value of photojournalism. He recognized that art is necessary, but doesn’t want to do the hard work to make it. I wonder how he would feel if people wrote articles on how to snake free words out of questionable websites. Would writers be OK with that? Would Ren and LaForme?

At the end of his piece, Brown invited other photojournalists and editors to contribute responses. A colleague of mine at the University of Georgia’s Grade College of Journalism and Mass Communications, Mark E. Johnson, had a forceful and thoughtful response, as did photo editor Sue Morrow, and the National Press Photographer’s Association. The NPPA article was even signed by Poynter’s former senior faculty in Visual Journalism, Kenny Irby, among other industry heavyweights. It’s clear his influence is sorely lacking with Poynter’s current staff. Irby left the institute in 2015.

While Poynter itself doesn’t seem to understand where it went wrong, it’s clear that one of the writers did. Kristen Hare had a thoughtful analysis of how the topic got so far off the rails, and posted it to both Twitter and as a comment on the original article:

LaForme didn’t offer any such introspective response, but did tweet the follow up articles.

Ren and LaForme dipped their toes into the water again to talk about the topic Thursday, but from the tone of the article, there's not much more there than baby steps to simply talk about photojournalism.

If Poynter really cared about visual journalism as much as they did about written journalism, their next step would be to follow their reporter’s advice and make a real change by hiring more visual journalists for their faculty. There are plenty out there, especially since many newspapers have laid off veteran photojournalists. I have a few good names if you’re interested, Poynter.

Photographers, Sound Off

So what do you think? Does Poynter have a point? Did they really step in it this time? Post your thoughts in the comments.