If the war in Ukraine is the biggest story in the world.... are the next generation of great photojournalists there??

[Rob Skeoch]

Pretty good conversation without getting too political. Just saying.
And little talk about gear, except for the couple posts that mentioned a photographer using a widelux and leica. So that's great too.

 

[Lee Rust]

Bluechromis and Lee: you both make good points. So what is the solution? First off, the news has always focused on the worse things that happened. That's not new. Should we reduce it? Post less photos of the mayhem.

If youngsters today don't care about traditional news, are they getting it differently andr if so aren't they affected by it similarly? After all people think, act and vote based on what they hear regardless of the source. I'm sure plenty of people have taken measures to reduce forest fires. And while w we may not be able to di anything personal regarding many issues, voters are taking positions on both sides of most issues.

Alan, the old newspaper adage of "if it bleeds, it leads" stems from the natural excitement that most of us experience from any perceived drama or conflict, so there's little likelihood of any future shift in journalistic priorities. Mass media publications and broadcast channels have always selected their content strictly according to measured audience response. Here in the USA, there are still a few idealistic FCC-imposed strictures and "public service" requirements imposed on over-the-air broadcasters, but those do not apply to cable and internet programming.

In the online age, the social media generations get their daily event awareness from a vast diversity of sources, updated constantly and filtered by personal preference, but the attention-getting techniques remain the same. We can debate endlessly about the differences between being informed by Lester Holt or by TikTok, but that just adds to the clatter of info-noise. As I've reminded my wife more than once whenever she complains about media-induced anxieties... just turn it down or turn it off.

We can take comfort in the knowledge that the "truth" is probably out there on the internet somewhere, but we must remember that this new accessability is balanced by a new responsibility for due diligence in separating fact from fiction or human from A.I.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, the old newspaper adage of "if it bleeds, it leads" stems from the natural excitement that most of us experience from any perceived drama or conflict, so there's little likelihood of any future shift in journalistic priorities. Mass media publications and broadcast channels have always selected their content strictly according to measured audience response. Here in the USA, there are still a few idealistic FCC-imposed strictures and "public service" requirements imposed on over-the-air broadcasters, but those do not apply to cable and internet programming.

In the online age, the social media generations get their daily event awareness from a vast diversity of sources, updated constantly and filtered by personal preference, but the attention-getting techniques remain the same. We can debate endlessly about the differences between being informed by Lester Holt or by TikTok, but that just adds to the clatter of info-noise. As I've reminded my wife more than once whenever she complains about media-induced anxieties... just turn it down or turn it off.

We can take comfort in the knowledge that the "truth" is probably out there on the internet somewhere, but we must remember that this new accessability is balanced by a new responsibility for due diligence in separating fact from fiction or human from A.I.

The news and photjournalism have always been biased before social media, the internet and cable TV. It's just that it was in newspapers, magazines and broadcast TV stations. Just like there are liberal and conservative cable news today, there were those in old media as well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The news and photjournalism have always been biased before social media, the internet and cable TV. It's just that it was in newspapers, magazines and broadcast TV stations. Just like there are liberal and conservative cable news today, there were those in old media as well.

Not true. There was an FCC Equal Time requirement. Just get off one cable provider and visit several regularly and any intelligent adult will quickly figure out where the truth is and the one blowing hot air and propaganda.

 

[Lee Rust]

Whether arrived at by choice or by chance, the subjective point-of-view from which we all experience our lives will always shape our reactions to our environment. So even though many of us might strive for an idealized objectivity, we can never actually get there. Some of our devices are capable of being truly objective, but only if there are no humans directly involved in their operation.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Not true. There was an FCC Equal Time requirement. Just get off one cable provider and visit several regularly and any intelligent adult will quickly figure out where the truth is and the one blowing hot air and propaganda.

The Equal time rule has nothing to do with general bias. It only required broadcast stations to provide equal time for the placement of campaign election ads. I don't think it applies to cable stations at all. Here's what Americans think about media fairness in media. It's pretty low.

• 34% have a "great deal" or "fair amount" of confidence in media
• 38% with no trust at all outpaces great deal/fair amount for first time
• 70% of Democrats, 14% of Republicans, 27% of independents trust media
  
  
  

  Americans' Trust In Media Remains Near Record Low

  Americans' trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly remains near the historical low, with sharply differing views among partisans.

  news.gallup.com

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Whether arrived at by choice or by chance, the subjective point-of-view from which we all experience our lives will always shape our reactions to our environment. So even though many of us might strive for an idealized objectivity, we can never actually get there. Some of our devices are capable of being truly objective, but only if there are no humans directly involved in their operation.

Measurements are nearly meaningless without human application and interpretation. Think of light meters as an example.

 

[Radost]

I don't want to go to the front line but would be interested in photographing everyday people living while the war is happening around them.

Nobody is going to let you go to the front line.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Nobody is going to let you go to the front line.

Why not?

 

[Radost]

Why not?

Because nobody is supposed to know what is going on there.

 

[koraks]

Pretty good conversation without getting too political. Just saying.
And little talk about gear, except for the couple posts that mentioned a photographer using a widelux and leica. So that's great too.

I really agree
Let's keep it that way, too, hopefully.

 

[KitosLAB]

Because nobody is supposed to know what is going on there.

Why not? Igor Ivarovsky filmed at the front line. The only option is to become a volunteer. Yes, go to war with a camera. Although in order to survive, you will most likely have to shoot not only from the camera. Well, not everyone dies in the end. Most return.

 

[Radost]

Why not? Igor Ivarovsky filmed at the front line. The only option is to become a volunteer. Yes, go to war with a camera. Although in order to survive, you will most likely have to shoot not only from the camera. Well, not everyone dies in the end. Most return.

Actually the easiest way to be killed in a war zone if you are press is to carry a weapon.

 

[Radost]

Why not? Igor Ivarovsky filmed at the front line. The only option is to become a volunteer. Yes, go to war with a camera. Although in order to survive, you will most likely have to shoot not only from the camera. Well, not everyone dies in the end. Most return. You can contact these guys directly.

I was in Ukraine with sky news for 4 months and nobody let us go anywhere close to the front line.
I honestly have not seen front line coverage like in other wars.

 

[bluechromis]

Bluechromis and Lee: you both make good points. So what is the solution? First off, the news has always focused on the worse things that happened. That's not new. Should we reduce it? Post less photos of the mayhem.

If youngsters today don't care about traditional news, are they getting it differently, and if so aren't they affected by it similarly? After all people think, act and vote based on what they hear regardless of the source. I'm sure plenty of people have taken measures to reduce forest fires. And while w we may not be able to di anything personal regarding many issues, voters are taking positions on both sides of most issues.

I don't have a panacea. There is a reasonable amount of evidence about the effects of overexposure to toxic media measurably harms people's health. There is information about how skewed and distorted the media reports are. It was interesting to me that the BBC was so much less negative. I'll watch that more now. It would be good if such information were more widely known.

It seems the entire way that truth in society is established is changing. It is often now not about how objective facts give evidence for something or disprove something. I am going to try not to get too political about this, but there is a shift now where more people feel the truth is established by the authority of the person or institution saying it. For such people, the ideal of journalism striving to share facts in an unbiased manner may not be highly valued. They may not believe the media should try to be neutral but should promote certain viewpoints.

It may be that journalism has never been perfectly unbiased. But it is a matter of degree, from pure propaganda in a police state to a semi-free press in more democratic countries. Also, historically in a free society, people had the option to consult several different media sources that would not be likely to share the same biases to try to triangulate the truth. Now many media sources are controlled by a small number of huge corporations that are not shy about skewing reporting to their benefit. We need to try to convey to people that regardless of one's views, there is a terrible risk it putting our understanding of truth entirely in the hands of another person or organization because we give away a huge amount of our power that way.

But the world is an immensely complex place, and typically, the truth about what is happening is not a black-or-white thing but is more nuanced and complex. In the vast majority of history, humans have lived in small bands, villages, or communities that were not so complex. This is compounded by the way that reportage focuses on scattered events, not on larger-scale trends that may shed light on many things.

It may be that, daunted by that complexity, some people resort to simplistic explanations. It takes mental effort to evaluate several sources of information to try to make determinations about what explanations are most valid. There is evidence that people that have extreme biases against certain groups engage in what psychologists call "low-effort thinking." It is easier to think, "all the other people are bad, and all my people are good." than to grasp the reality of it, which is always more complex and ambiguous. We need to convince people somehow that, in the end, it is worth trying to seek the truth.

 

[Radost]

MSM is like living in a Groundhog Day movie.
Every time people believe them.
When was the last time they did not lie about something?
Thankfully more and more people are realizing that and independent journalists are becoming more popular for the actual work that they do.

 

[KitosLAB]

Actually the easiest way to be killed in a war zone if you are press is to carry a weapon.

Oh no! The highest probability of being killed in a war zone is to be unarmed. This has been proven by many and personally verified.

 

[Radost]

MSM is like living in a Groundhog Day movie.
Every time people believe them.
When was the last time they did not lie about something?
Thankfully more and more people are realizing that and indipensent journalists are becoming more popular for the actual work that they do.

Oh no! The highest probability of being killed in a war zone is to be unarmed. This has been proven by many and personally verified.

If you carry a weapon you become a target. You can have something small hidden somewhere. But you start shouting you get killed.

 

[Radost]

Also a journalist with a weapon is exempt of the established war rules and protections.

 

[Radost]

The same goes for press cars transporting actual solders. Also civilians who carry weapons are legitimate targets.

 

[KitosLAB]

Do you seriously think that the inscription "Press" has any meaning for Russians? From my house to Bucha 20 km, to Irpin 15 km. Why did the tragedy happen in Bucha? Because people didn't have weapons. The Russians were already in Kyiv, street fighting was already going on. Why didn't we have a tragedy? We managed to get weapons. This is my home. 03/09/2022. It is 20 km from Bucha and 5 km from Kyiv. And there was no official permission from the press. I'm not on the video. I was on duty at night, so I slept during the day

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Equal time rule has nothing to do with general bias. It only required broadcast stations to provide equal time for the placement of campaign election ads. I don't think it applies to cable stations at all. Here's what Americans think about media fairness in media. It's pretty low.

• 34% have a "great deal" or "fair amount" of confidence in media
• 38% with no trust at all outpaces great deal/fair amount for first time
• 70% of Democrats, 14% of Republicans, 27% of independents trust media
  
  
  

  Americans' Trust In Media Remains Near Record Low

  Americans' trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly remains near the historical low, with sharply differing views among partisans.

  news.gallup.com

The loss of Equal Time on cable has led to a weaponization of News which turned into a fake new industry on cable and the highly partizan politics of today. A great leap backward for all.

 

[Radost]

Do you seriously think that the inscription "Press" has any meaning for Russians? From my house to Bucha 20 km, to Irpin 15 km. Why did the tragedy happen in Bucha? Because people didn't have weapons. The Russians were already in Kyiv, street fighting was already going on. Why didn't we have a tragedy? We managed to get weapons. This is my home. 03/09/2022. It is 20 km from Bucha and 5 km from Kyiv. And there was no official permission from the press. I'm not on the video. I was on duty at night, so I slept during the day

The permission comes from the government and and the military not the press.
No idea what the rest of your post even means.
I am talking about if you go to a war zone to do journalism don’t have weapons or help the military.
Nothing to do with defending your home or partisan guerrila war fair.

 

[Radost]

The loss of Equal Time on cable has led to a weaponization of News which turned into a fake new industry on cable and the highly partizan politics of today. A great leap backward for all.

Equal time means nothing. Division is created on cultural and other issue to distract from actual problems we face and who created it. Democrats and republicans represent the same interest. Everything else is just a distraction.

 

[KitosLAB]

The permission comes from the government and and the military not the press.
No idea what the rest of your post even means.
I am talking about if you go to a war zone to do journalism don’t have weapons or help the military.
Nothing to do with defending your home or partisan guerrila war fair.

In this war, the biggest battle was the battle for Kyiv. Kyiv was almost surrounded and the Russians were already destroying our warehouses with food in the hope of breaking the resistance. Tragedy was averted only thanks to general armament. At that time, the front line was everywhere, including on the streets of Kyiv, and reporters could easily get access there. Have you been to Ukraine. Do you really think that the inscription "Press" matters to Russians? Why should I trust the "Independent" journalist more than the official one? Where does the Independent Journalist get its funding from? Perhaps from the Kremlin?