CNN fires photojournalists

[lux]

I just found this Nov 2011 "memo" from CNN in which they announce that an unspecified number of photojournalists have been given the boot. This seems an odd development in an age where, more than ever, photojournalism (though often faked) seems to play an ever increasing role. I'm not sure what to make of this. Of course it could be a complete falsehood (considering the source) but perhaps it means they are preparing for some truly horrendous fakery and would rather that the fewer who are "in the know," the better. Or, maybe the increased awareness of their past fakery is beginning to rear its ugly head. In any case, their statement on the matter is awfully vague.

Friday, November 11, 2011

For the past three years, we have been analyzing our work process across Image + Sound, both in the field and in our editing and production areas.

Our goal has been to make sure we have the right resources in the right places to meet the demands of all of our programs. Technology investments in our newsrooms now allow more desk-top editing and publishing for broadcast and online. This evolution allows more people in more places to edit and publish than ever before. As a result of these technology and workflow changes, CNN is reducing the number of media editors in our work force in Atlanta. CNN Image + Sound will continue with high end craft editing that has positive impact on our networks and platforms.

We also spent a great deal of time analyzing how we utilize and deploy photojournalists across all of our locations in the U.S. We looked at the evolution of daytime and evening line-ups. We analyzed how stories are assigned and more importantly the ratio of stories assigned that actually make it on to our networks or platforms. We know that we have to sharpen our focus on stories assigned to ensure that this great work gets on air. We looked at production demands, down time, and international deployments. We looked at the impact of user-generated content and social media, CNN iReporters and of course our affiliate contributions in breaking news. Consumer and pro-sumer technologies are simpler and more accessible. Small cameras are now high broadcast quality. More of this technology is in the hands of more people. After completing this analysis, CNN determined that some photojournalists will be departing the company.

We cannot begin to thank these individuals enough for their service to CNN. They leave with our respect and our sincere best wishes.

Now that we have completed this three-year review, we believe that we have the right resources in the right places and the proper staffing at Image + Sound, and that the unit is well-positioned to have an even more positive impact on our networks and platforms.

Jack

Source:
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/ ... ck-womack/

[lux]

Well, the above post probably wasn't exciting enough for a thread of its own ...

So, I thought I'd post this somewhat related video. I think you'll find it entertaining ...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_vVUIYOmJM

[daozen]

CNN needs to shed its last honest journalists as this year they are getting a few shows together and they need the best actors and cgi artists in town! Cool vid btw!

[lux]

Amusing MSM story about CNN losing much of its audience ...

Perhaps, if I may be so bold, this is what happens to you when you continue to report stories that no longer resemble -- even remotely -- what your own viewers see outside their windows and apartments."

http://www.businessinsider.com/wait-did ... ers-2012-3

[blackmilk]

How do you folks seriously sleep without facts, figures and evidence? Not to disprove your CNN theory, but I will..

40% of the world is not covered by Reuters or AP,
BBC does not have a foreign office in South America,
Only 3 newspapers in the US have foreign offices.
200'000 photojournalists, journalists and editors have been sacked during the recession.

Can this justify a CGI turn around time of 3 minutes? Now your arguments - "Photojournalists playing an ever increasing role" - well chuckles, the PJ industry has declined along with newspapers due to digital (not to be mistaken with CGI), in the advent of citizen journalists using hand held cameras. Now globally, the media has used normal citizens like yourself to supply the news. Many a conference has been given n the need to stem the amount of blood seen in the news - it actually is public diplomacy, huzzah! Lets be frank, blood shocks and thus does not sell. All the 'habeas corpus' stories I see littered on here are tantamount to that.

The 50 PJ' sacked have found their way into other agencies, CNN on the other hand have extended their use of iReport, a place where 'on the ground' citizens film and submit content after being verified. It is quite good. I will give you three challenges:

How does a citizen PJ uploading content of a major event, in Mali, fake the content when it tallies with other images?
How does that person alter metadata?
How also does that person get it through verification methods used by the mass media, to be bought by newspapers?

Let me know how you get on.

[Maat]

blackmilk,

How do you expect to be taken seriously on a forum dedicated to investigating media fakery without citing any sources for your supposed "facts, figures and evidence" or providing credible details of your purported knowledge by introducing yourself as required here?

If you won't follow those simple rules to confirm an honest interest in respectful and intelligent discussions about the extent of corporate media control, all you'll prove is that you are only here to troll. Crystal?

[lux]

Somebody open a window -- it smells like Mitch Matrixx in here.

[diagonal2]

Well, the above post probably wasn't exciting enough for a thread of its own ...

So, I thought I'd post this somewhat related video. I think you'll find it entertaining ...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_vVUIYOmJM

Adobe is a curse on this planet and should be banned, its uses are more harmful than it does good. A good example of this is kids believing the people in magazines are REAL, when they are NOT real.

[hoi.polloi]

How does a citizen PJ uploading content of a major event, in Mali, fake the content when it tallies with other images?
How does that person alter metadata?
How also does that person get it through verification methods used by the mass media, to be bought by newspapers?

You mean, "How does a citizen PJ upload content that doesn't 'tally' with a Hollywood fiction?" We don't know either. Enlighten us on the "verification methods" you presume to know about. We'd love to hear why "they" approved CNN's bogus imagery on 9/11.

Oh, and anyone can alter metadata using notepad.exe. Typically, if your milk is discolored, it should be thrown out. So you're banned if you cannot provide us with an inside scoop of all the "verification methods" developed by the secret service over the course of their decades-long history of owning the American media. Cough it up, or good luck out there, blackmilk.

[diagonal2]

They're excellent story tellers: http://ireport.cnn.com/toolkit.jspa

[blackmilk]

No probs! I'm not too fussed on a ban if you go down that route if you prefer to chat amongst yourselves.

Verification is paramount in uploading content. As for someone high up in the media industry, this process stops muppets uploading bogus content. There are many normal people trying to sway their views in uploading propaganda to news organisations.

Looking at this thread, there are two arguments, verification of content, and bias propagated news - not always the same.

@Diagonal2 - thats a toolkit for starters not a guideline.

Verification models and departments in various news orgs:

Des Speigel - Inside the worls largest fact checking company http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/insi ... p?page=all
Storify use these before going onto phase 2.

Where is this account registered and where has the uploader been based, judging by their history?
Are there other accounts – Twitter, Facebook, a blog or website – affiliated with this uploader? What information do they bear to indicate recent location, activity, reliability, bias, agenda?
How long have these accounts been in existence? How active are they?
Do they write in slang or dialect that is identifiable in the video’s narration?
Can we find WHOIS information for an affiliated website?
Is the person listed in local directories? Do their online social circles indicate they are close to this story/location?
Does the uploader ‘scrape’ videos from news organisations and other YouTube accounts, or do they upload solely user-generated content?
Are the videos on this account of a consistent quality?
Are video descriptions consistent and mostly from a specific location? Are they dated? Do they have file extensions such as .AVI or .MP4 in the video title?
Are we familiar with this account – has their content and reportage been reliable in the past?

Stage two is contacting 10 people on the ground, from police, fire, owners, politicians or professional journalists - cross checking this with public flurry across the web.

http://blog.storyful.com/2012/04/24/ins ... n-process/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguideline ... -material/

Now, metadata can be changed, but weather, eyewitnesses, sound and video can't be changed by over 200 different reporters in a city in around 30 secs.

Eyefi is a system we sometimes use, you shoot content and it beams directly to us without post prod. Also Bambuser, live feeds from battlegrounds and atrociousness.

I can take a single image and pour over it, but my argument can be crushed when its cross checked with others, cross verified using above methods. Do not be confused between how a user uploads, to how its checked. Yes it's untrustworthy, without doubt! Yet if the content is placed through verification areas, like Photoshop analysis programs, like image data banks like Google Image and TinEye.

Also the hires, a company hires people, if that person starts falsifying information for its bosses, and is found out - they are slated! Why was there no flying saucers in any of the images? Clearly its a conspiracy then right?

The 9/11 content - specially CNN? What about others..you understand that there were more than a million images being shot of 9/11 - and that CNN are ONE agency broadcasting? Not only that but this was 2001, Getty only started doing breaking news after this, plus video coding and home editing was dog shit compared to that video above.

Please read all the links above.

[simonshack]

No probs! I'm not too fussed on a ban if you go down that route if you prefer to chat amongst yourselves.

Verification is paramount in uploading content.

Blackmilk,

You have already been asked by our administrator Maat to introduce yourself as required here.

Yes, it is our policy to block any new Cluesforum registrant if he/she/it fails to comply with our simple rule.
It may not be much of a verification process - but at least it helps provide some notion of the new members' backgrounds, interests, motivations and eloquence.

Since your very discourse focuses on the topic of verifying sources and their legitimacy, you must appreciate that it is all the more important for us to know a little about yourself. For all I know, and seeing how you vouch for the very media corporations that we keep exposing on a daily basis, you may work for CNN or some similar ruthless propaganda joint - the likes of which have an abysmal record of truthful and honest reporting. For you to come here and defend the piss-poor reputation of the world's major news agencies and TV networks is truly an unenviable, thankless task. I wish you good luck with that - let's see how you get on.

But first, be so kind to introduce yourself as requested - or be gone. Thanks

[blackmilk]

Was that post after you read the links?

Shall we go down the route of 'outing' a person instead? If I say who I am, what verification protocol do I go down..? What verification techniques do you have for checking I say who I really am...thats right. Google, nothing else. Seems a little hypocritical now doesn't it?

Here's an alien, he has proof of another planet. Lets question his motives and where he's from first. Sad. Nobody on any part of this forum has bothered emailing photographers directly, we all here feel.

"you may work for CNN or some similar ruthless propaganda joint"

- Unsure, is it the CNN? or is it the photographer? The freelance photographer, the CJ, or the publisher? Or is it the CEO!

There is a difference between editorial control (which I am against) and mass image manipulation of breaking news. You are blurring grey boundaries here boys. I don't defend a lot of news orgs, in fact we are all in multiple levels of competition.

Did I say I support the views that 9/11 was a conspiracy?

[simonshack]

Shall we go down the route of 'outing' a person instead? If I say who I am, what verification protocol do I go down..? What verification techniques do you have for checking I say who I really am...thats right. Google, nothing else. Seems a little hypocritical now doesn't it?

Did I ask you to tell us who you are? No.

Please read the full text of our introduction requirements here: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=838

If you feign being stupid - not understanding what our simple 'hand-shake' introduction requirement is all about - we are not interested in your membership. Here's your last chance to introduce yourself - as EVERY new member is asked to do. We make no exceptions for arrogant people. Also, make sure you provide an eloquent description of your motives for registering on this forum.

[blackmilk]

Going through your 'Introduce yourself' post. Like I said, not much for verifying who you lot are?

All further info (personal websites/youtube/myspace/facebook channels/etc) is highly appreciated by the administrators whose primary concern is currently to restrain the flood of totally anonymous entities with dubious agendas registering here.

Could make those in minutes, with a fake persona. "discredit by association". Is stated here, but clearly without verification of sources, proof (i.e - phone calls, known people who work with, long term cross checks) so on - this forum could be filled with liars. No?

Surely the verification techniques used by content moderators in the media, before being used in media outlets, seriously outweighs a 'give us your Facebook address and place of work' to post 'for trust purposes'?

Just 'musings' as you say.