• RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
    781·
    3 days ago

    What a lazy hands-off way of reporting. What happened to walking in the crowd, interviewing protesters, interviewing innoconous passers-by, interviewing people that are hindered, …, and also getting a reaction/quote from whomever/whatever is being protested against? Instead they apparently want to just publish some photos. That’s not journalism, that’s photography.

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      262·
      3 days ago

      Photography is journalism.

      Scroll through the Pulitzer winning photographs, and know that some of them have literally changed history. Pulitzer winning photographs from the Vietnam War turned political opinion on the war itself: 1969’s Saigon Execution by Edward T. Adams, 1973’s Terror of War by Nick Ut. 1977’s The Soiling of Old Glory, was a key part in telling the story of what the state of the desegregation movement was at that time. 1994’s The Vulture and the Little Girl (actually a boy) did make a difference in spurring increases in both private and government/NGO aid, and tragically played a big role in the photographer’s suicide a year later.

      There is a time and a place for words, for still photos, for video. Visual works like still photos are still incredibly important for journalism, especially coverage of things like demonstrations and protests.

      • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
        112·
        3 days ago

        I’m not against using photos in support of journalism, they absolutely make a difference, but photography alone is not journalism. Without a story, it’s just photography. Your examples seem to have all been part of a bigger story.

        My opinion is basically reflected in that quote you used: “a key part in telling the story of”. While it was a key part, the photo alone was not the entire story.