agencies and "objectivity"

SimonSawSunlight

SimonSawSunlight

Simon Fabel
Local time
9:56 PM
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Messages
3,032
what do the big agencies (reuters, ap, afp, etc.) do to maintain their ideal of "objectivity"? what are the requirements for their material to be considered usable in an "objective" journalistic context?

EDIT:
the fact that objectivity is an illusion is implied.

my question has clearly been completely misunderstood, maybe for lack of clarity on my part...

i was not asking whether there is such a thing as objective photography (of course there isn't), or which photographer is more objective than the other. my question is what do bigger news agencies do to get as close as possible to what they believe to be "objective" accounts of certain events, which journalistic "rules" do they enforce? and what do you think are the consequences of that?
 
35mmdelux said:
There is no such thing as objectivity. It is a false premise -
Click to expand...

I second this. It frustrated me so much at university, discussing this subject. In a nutshell, the simple act of framing is subjective, you will imbue some personal stance upon the image.
 
I find it quite hard to think of a single great photojournalist who was always and fully "objective". Also, it's often quite hard to take pictures of both sides, without at least one of the sides taking you for a spy. Whether you deliberately choose one side or the other, or you end up on one side by accident, that's where you're likely to stay. Finally, there is always a "Official" or "Party" line, and quite a lot of photographers are in their nature anti-authoritarian.

Cheers,

R.
 
i would say the idea of objectivity has been tossed at the agency and outlet level. the coverage of what occurred in Iraq most certainly would have shown this. if any doubt remained, Libya ended it for me.

the shift to one-sided coverage is almost complete across the board through the large outlets. Syria again is showing this fault line quite clearly.
 
i would say the idea of objectivity has been tossed at the agency and outlet level. the coverage of what occurred in Iraq most certainly would have shown this. if any doubt remained, Libya ended it for me.

the shift to one-sided coverage is almost complete across the board through the large outlets. Syria again is showing this fault line quite clearly.
Click to expand...

I believe you are correct in this. It may not be the desire of the agencies themselves, however. The final decision on what pictures to show will be that of the editors and simple commercial realities dictate that a provider will supply what a customer will buy.
 
agencies are businesses and a business is by its very nature biased, first to be profitable and secondly to please its customers.

a consumer product, such as photography sold by agencies is a product and it has to appeal to some people in order for them to buy it.

great works of photography such as Sahel, The End of The Road by Salgado was not published for many years in US because publishers thought it was too depressing and no one would buy it.

in other words if your work is very good and objective its likely that no one would get to see it because the business culture only filters what could be sold. this also means people who try to compete in the "pleasing pictures" field have their work cut out for them because that is where everyone is aiming for -- that is where the money is.
 
35mmdelux said:
There is no such thing as objectivity. It is a false premise -
Click to expand...

please read the op again. the fact that objectivity is an illusion is implied.

my question has clearly been completely misunderstood, maybe for lack of clarity on my part...

i was not asking whether there is such a thing as objective photography (of course there isn't), or which photographer is more objective than the other. my question is what do bigger news agencies do to get as close as possible to what they believe to be "objective" accounts of certain events, which journalistic "rules" do they enforce? and what do you think are the consequences of that?
 
SimonSawSunlight said:
what do the big agencies (reuters, ap, afp, etc.) do to maintain their ideal of "objectivity"? what are the requirements for their material to be considered usable in an "objective" journalistic context?
Click to expand...

I suspect these agencies maintain the respect of news consumers by spending a lot of time and money fact-checking. Of course, no fact-checking is perfect, especially within the time constraints of modern news consumption. But I trust these agencies more than independents, like I trust the New York Times more than independents… they spend more time on the fact-checking.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
I suspect these agencies maintain the respect of news consumers by spending a lot of time and money fact-checking. Of course, no fact-checking is perfect, especially within the time constraints of modern news consumption. But I trust these agencies more than independents, like I trust the New York Times more than independents… they spend more time on the fact-checking.
Click to expand...

i wouldn't rule out independents like The Guardian. i have worked for both and The Guardian has been the most stringent i have encountered.
 
re. Molhem Barakat: photographers die in war - it is the hard truth. At 17 he was young, but it doesn't make Reuters responsible for his death nor does it say anything 'bout the trustworthiness of Reuters.

re. Houla: The BBC made a misstake. I believe it to be an honest mistake and I think it won't happen in the foreseeable future. They will have their rules improved. Like Jamie said: "Of course, no fact-checking is perfect, especially within the time constraints of modern news consumption."

Both Reuters and BBC live off their reputation - they will go the way of News of the World if they didn't try to be reliable (I think btw that reliability and trustworthiness are in this case better terms then objectivity).
 
Addy101 said:
re. Molhem Barakat: photographers die in war - it is the hard truth. At 17 he was young, but it doesn't make Reuters responsible for his death nor does it say anything 'bout the trustworthiness of Reuters.

re. Houla: The BBC made a misstake. I believe it to be an honest mistake and I think it won't happen in the foreseeable future. They will have their rules improved. Like Jamie said: "Of course, no fact-checking is perfect, especially within the time constraints of modern news consumption."

Both Reuters and BBC live off their reputation - they will go the way of News of the World if they didn't try to be reliable (I think btw that reliability and trustworthiness are in this case better terms then objectivity).
Click to expand...


on the contrary i think it says a lot about Reuters and many experienced and accomplished journalists agree. the age of Molhem is only the beginning of where the credibility chain breaks. his past behaviour would have eliminated him from any 1st year journalism students list of credible examples. Reuters is also being scrutinized as there are/were many credible journalists/photojournalists working in the region yet Reuters chose to run with the cheapest option versus paying what this work actually costs, to trustworthy and experienced folks. this is a widespread problem within the industry. from friends i understand he was being paid $100 for 10 images per day. that is far below what someone like myself would be paid and i would have a day rate guaranteed. Reuters was DEFINITELY responsible for Molhem's death the minute they sent him cameras and lenses and began to license his images on to The New York Times. Reuters failed to sent a stage 4 vest or helmet along with the cameras. Reuters also failed to relay to it's audience that Molhem's brother was a fighting FSA member which again, would immediately call into question his position.

FROM REUTERS OWN GUIDEBOOK FOR CONTRACTED PHOTOGRAPHERS:

You may move into a dangerous environment only with the authorisation of your superior. Wherever possible the senior regional editor for your discipline should be consulted. Assignments will be limited to those with experience of such circumstances and those under their direct supervision. No journalists will be assigned to a danger zone unless they have completed a Hostile Environment training course.

this is only a small portion of the guidelines however Molhem's eligibility is clearly deficient. combine this with his direct family link to the FSA and yes, many journalists are questioning Reuters trustworthiness, including former long-term Reuters employees.

i will not go into details about the BBC mistake other than to say they had direct access and contact with experienced and credible journalists on the ground and chose to run stock.
 
emraphoto said:
i wouldn't rule out independents like The Guardian. i have worked for both and The Guardian has been the most stringent i have encountered.
Click to expand...

I've not read the Guardian, but I don't think it fits in the category of "independent" I'm thinking of. I meant by independent, someone freelancing their work for hire.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
I've not read the Guardian, but I don't think it fits in the category of "independent" I'm thinking of. I meant by independent, someone freelancing their work for hire.
Click to expand...

... independent as in not owned by an australian megalomanic, fascist aristocrat or other vested interest



that statement in no way represents the author's views and any resemblance to real press barons, alive or dead (or both) is purely coincidental
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top