No one disputes the fact images often times make a news story. Images attract a viewer and can convey a sense of "being there" at the source of the news. Well composed images often times lend impact to a story that mere words alone could not convey.
News outlets traditionally employed professional photojournalists who are dispatched to the news scene to "get the images" needed to support the news being reported. But recently CNN has fired some of its photojournalists in favor of developing what it calls I-Reporters. The move raises an interesting debate on the value of photography and the ethics of news reporting.
On its website CNN has for sometime encouraged viewers to submit images of news in the making. The initial theory being news occurs randomly everywhere and no news organization can possibly cover it all, or anticipate which stories will be published. In addition, news organizations recognize that nearly everyone carries a smartphone or other device capable of taking images whose quality can be acceptable for use in news coverage. By soliciting images from viewers a news organization can get the benefit of potentially having millions of photojournalists on the ground covering potential news stories. And in fact CNN reportedly does get many images regularly from I-Reporters it can potentially use in news stories. CNN also does not pay for the images submitted to it even if they are used in a news story.
At the center of the debate is the decision to rely on what is described as "user generated" content versus original content developed by professionals. This can raise ethical issues about the use of images that can and may in fact have been manipulated by amateur I-reporters, rather than an eyewitness image produced by a trained journalist. It also involves a "cost of coverage" issue for news organizations. Clearly it is cheaper in theory to have free news photos and stories to publish to save the costs associated with sending journalists to the scene of the news. But there are costs associated with handling and reviewing the thousands of images submitted by I-reporters, not to mention the investigation that may be required to put the images into a workable news story.
Finally, there is an issue regarding the quality of the news. Trained photojournalists produce professional content, but so can some I-reporters with the advantage they may happen to be at the scene of the news, whereas a professional may not. Photographers have this discussion all the time: What is better, getting a lower quality shot with a cheap point and shoot camera that is easy to carry, or not getting it at all because it is too difficult to carry expensive and heavy professional equipment around all the time? The move to rely more on I-reporters rather than professional photojournalists is much the same debate and the outcome does affect the type and quality of the news the public will ultimately receive.
To view the article go to
CNN.
