I know I said I was out, but I will comment on this-- I never made contacts. I had deadlines that were as close to 2-3 hours out from the actual time I shot the assignment, and this was back shooting film and having to do all the processing, printing, writing the basic caption etc myself on the deadline--on top of having to travel to the assignment & get back to the newspaper. the paper I started at as a kid, was the largest in the state, had about a half-million circulation, about 6 editions. On a Friday night, I would shoot prep sports as far as 3 counties away--this meant I had to be at field by around 7 pm, shoot for about 15 minutes tops, in order to get back in time for a 9:30-10 pm deadline. When I started--the old timers told me not to come back unless I had at least 4 rolls of film. They also schooled me on NEVER showing an editor a contact sheet--the photographer did the edit, because someone else would pick the shots that would always be the ones that were trouble to print--and this is usually true.
Back at the paper--I would run the film, dry it in a senrac type dryer, and would edit my shots on a light table. I would need about 4-5 shots for the editors, often a mix of vertical & horizontal. I also had to ID the players in the shot. This meant that at the actual time I shot the image--on the field--I had to be 100% certain I could ID the player by the number/team etc. If I thought I had missed the jersey number in the shot--I would shoot an image of the player's back immediately afterwards. On the way into the game, or out--I would go to the press box and shoot the rosters of each team so I could get the IDs.
To edit on the light table--we used a hole puncher to clip the negs at the bottom of the frame. The lab had Leitz Focomats and you ran the whole roll through, until you came across the clipped neg--used Kodak Royalprint processors for the paper--this machine had a "gate" that could be lifted up after an activator of about 15 seconds. You could proof the print this way, if it was good, you flipped it over, stuck it back into another slot and fixed, washed & dry. After making the print--you go out to the finishing room, and type your captions on the back of the print itself, running it through a typewriter like it was piece of paper, then stamp it up--rush it out to the editor at the sportsdesk etc, and you're done. Or else, there were other protocols for if it were going to be transmitted out on the AP/UPI wires--which were like telefax type machines. In the case of spot news--I shot some things that were right on top of the deadline, that I had to run the film in hot paper developers more or less and print the negs while still wet.
I was a stringer for one paper that used nothing but singleweight graded paper--they tray processed with straight rapid fix--about 5 seconds. worked at another that had an ektamatic, and another even that used prescreen dupont PMT paper--skipped the halftone screens on the camera, stripped it right in with the type...but I never made a contact sheet working for a newspaper. The negs themselves were often stored in envelopes with the IDs and info on them--they were filed this way, not by the contact. I still work like this at the museum & archive actually. We only make contacts for others--the photographers use the actual film. A good photographer or a printer can read a negative pretty quickly. It's no different with digital really--I edit in the camera now more or less.
BTW--motordrives are sometimes more trouble than their worth. The old adage, "if you see it in the viewfinder, you've missed it" is so true--you have to get the timing right, and that comes from experience, intuition and often luck. It doesn't come from laying on a motor drive--I don't care, it's the same with digital. The only thing it gets you, is more crap to have to edit through. the old timers who shot 4x5, often tell stories about shooting one sheet of film only--at a game for instance--and then pulling 3-4 shots out in the darkroom. I printed a 4x5 neg from a rose bowl game once, and it was just like that. 2-3 great plays all on one sheet of film...
btw--I really wanted to add something--this whole perception of salary thing, just sticks in my craw, because I grew up (and still work) around so many people who chose to make a living out of working as photographers--and see themselves as craftsmen really. A lot of the tone of this thread, has been demeaning to be honest---it went from the exploitative employer to the poor sap who's dumb enough to take the job in the first place, bangin' out stupid images with no thought whatsoever. it has shown me who here actually has worked as a photographer, whether I agree with all the opinions or not.
that said--news photography? you want to actually see it? outside of the idealized niche of the names mentioned--FSA, Life? You can see it in the POY competitions or by attending Short Courses in your area. As a student I was able to staff about ten years worth of short courses for the NPPA and had the pleasure of meeting & hearing talks by folks like George Tames, Bernie Boston, and locals like Jock Lauterer and Don Sturkey. Sturkey worked for close to 30 yrs for the paper I worked at as a kid--he was a POY winner and his work, from the features to the civil rights coverage are housed in an archive collection now. Jock Lauterer is perhaps, one of the best photographers I have ever seen--he's inspirational in his approach to photography & story telling on the community level. His books "Running on Rims" is a classic, and I'm happy that at the museum we were able to get him as a guest speaker once--every opportunity I've had to see his work, I've been moved--he has a great eye, works very simply & clean, and really knows human nature--he started two community newspapers and worked them for years, from the ground up.David LaBelle is another as is Jim Richardson-his book "High School USA" is a great example, to me anyways, of photojournalism.
This is how I came up, who I admired--people like Sturkey, Jeep Hunter and others who worked for years for newspapers as staffers. I find the talk of staff phototgraphers here to be almost offensive in some ways, but I try not to take it personally because of the nature of the internet and the fact that this isn't a pro forum. that's it though.