Disqus - Latest Comments for dirckhalstead

Re: DirckHalstead.com

dirckhalstead — Sat, 28 May 2011 21:03:29 -0000

GoDaddy sold my domain 11 days ago, with no warning whatsoever. One of the reasons listed is there were no visitors in 2011. That is not true. I know, because I have visited many times.

Dirckhalstead.com is a business address. You are liable for damages unless it is restored promptly, and I will pursue it.

Re: Photographers debate what should replace staged photo opps now that White House is ending the practice

dirckhalstead — Thu, 26 May 2011 17:15:17 -0000

After the assassination of President Kennedy, the Warren Commission held hearings about the circumstances of the shooting, and one of the issues was the responsibility of the White House to make sure that at least a tight press pool had constant access.

In the Kennedy shooting, the secure package, containing the president's vehicle and security follow up, broke away from the motorcade, leaving the press pool behind. Merriman Smith, the UPI dean of correspondents testified before the commission, and as a result legislation was written and enacted that made it law that when traveling outside the White House, a press pool must always be included in the motorcade. I believe there was a limit attached as to how far away the pool had to be. I think it was several hundred feet, close enough to observe anything that happened in real time.

This law was abrogated on 9/11. When Air Force One landed at Offutt Air Force Base on the way back to Washington the press pool was offloaded, along with many White House staffers. I think this is the only time this has happened.

The present "tight pool" consists of:

AP correspondent
AP photographer
Reuters correspondent
Reuters photographer
AFP photographer and reporter (note, when UPI went out of business AFP and Reuters picked up their clients)
TV crew (camera and sound)
TV correspondent
Radio reporter
Magazine photographer
Magazine reporter

There are a total of 12 press seats on Air Force One.

Re: Reuters, AP photojournalists describe staging of Obama photo

dirckhalstead — Thu, 05 May 2011 11:40:29 -0000

The practice of "restaging" a presidential address from the White House has been with us as long as I can remember.

It all boils down to the needs of TV, which is the reason for the address in the first place. There is only one good place to be to capture the same image the TV feed camera is delivering. It is where the TV camera is. In order to do shoot that image, the oval office is slightly rearranged. Cables are laid, lights are brought in.

In my experience in shooting countless of these photo ops, once the TV address is done, the prime camera is pulled back, and the photographers are allowed in. Generally, the president rereads certain lines from his address so the still photographs can be done.

I don't see any ethical conflicts in this practice. It is just the nature of space and time.

Dirck Halsead

Re: Why the Tablet won’t save the print industry

dirckhalstead — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:24:22 -0000

The tablet or slate can only save the print industry if the industry shuts down the presses.

I imagine the day that I get a package at my front door. It contains a tablet with a note from the NY Times. "Thank you for your subscriptions to the Times. This is a gift from us. You will find it enabled with a NYTimes APP. You will be able to continue reading the Times but the experience will be even better. By the Way,
we will discontinue delivering your print editon in six weeks."

In other words, publishers have to go cold turkey.

Without a print edition available to advertisers, they will have to deal with a new cost structure. The NY Times is still worth a certain amount if you want to use it for advertising, regardless of the format.

It is up to the publishers to enforce new pricing for their online additions, and at the same time, make the content more appealing to the new readers on tablets.
They have plenty of room to do that, when you consider that 80% if their publication costs are entirely related to print production.

Re: Editorial: Let's Abolish 'Citizen Journalists' - The Digital Journalist

dirckhalstead — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:03:01 -0000

Sadly, it's all over.

Re: Editorial: Let's Abolish 'Citizen Journalists' - The Digital Journalist

dirckhalstead — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:33:42 -0000

This from today's NPPA list:

Matthew Hinton wrote:

From the AP via the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.c...

'"This study does suggest that if newspapers were to disappear, what would
be left to aggregate?" said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for
Excellence in Journalism.'

I'm probably going to take some flak for saying this, but I think it's
independent bloggers who are going to fill that gap. For every true
journalist blogger there's at least 1000 who are just providing commentary
or "Me too" responses, but true independent journalist bloggers who are
generating actual news content do exist, and in many cases their content is
as-good, if not better than the content published in newspapers by the
"professionals". There's a way to go yet before blog content is as usable as
newspaper content, but we're getting closer.

I know the argument is that with independent bloggers there's no quality
control, but that's where the aggregators come in - why aggregate a blog
with crap content?

--
~Kieran Simkin
http://slinq.com/
http://digital-crocus.com/
+44 (0) 1273 929209

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:33:55 -0800
From: Mark Loundy <mark@loundy.org>
Subject: Re: The future of journalism?

Matthew,

It's a matter of supply vs. demand. Currently, there is insufficient
demand for original reporting for the market to pay for it. That's
why newspapers are shedding journalists. Eventually, the supply of
high quality journalism will reach a balance point with the market
that supports it.

Some of that demand will come from businesses and business models
that do not currently exist. And yes, much of the supply will come
from independent journalists. The term "blogger" will fade away along
with such terms as "home page."

Mark Loundy
Twitter: @Mark Loundy
http://www.loundy.org

http://www.mediawoorks.com
Media Consulting and Video Production

Re: Editorial: Let's Abolish 'Citizen Journalists' - The Digital Journalist

dirckhalstead — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:11:41 -0000

There is another important element to this argument that we have not talked much about, since it is still just over the horizon. While we are in the process of reorganizing The Digital Journalist one of our prime goals is to get the site ready for the next wave, which is mobile.

Up until now, the web has been a low-cost operation for most of the people who use it.
One webmaster can produce a pretty slick looking site, as is validated by our own Mark Wilke.

However, once we get into the world of the “tablet” or “slate” things will change dramatically. To take advantage of the capabilities of this technology, the ante will be raised considerably in production values. The web as it exists today is fairly static, but the tablet will be dynamic. It will require programmers to produce the content. The web will start to resemble TV, which requires collaborative effort. In short, it will take professionals. That will also apply to the people providing the content. Producing a state of the art web site for the slate will not come cheap. The good news is that advertising for these sites will start to equal television rates, meaning that web site production will become “big time.”

This major shift will start in just a couple of months. Hold onto your hats.

Re: E-Bits: All Trees, No Forest - The Digital Journalist

dirckhalstead — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:42:55 -0000

I suspect that one of these days, New York Times subscribers will receive a mysterious package on their doorstep.
Opening it they will find a "kindle" type tablet, along with a free subscription to Amazon downloads. With the tablet will come a letter from the New York Times, telling them the tablet is theirs to keep so they can read their daily Times online. It will also say that in 90 days the Times will cease publishing print editions

Re: The Time for Triage - The Digital Journalist

dirckhalstead — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:17:46 -0000

\I don't know about you, but my Times costs me $2.00 a day. If they drop the print editon, that cost goes down 80%, and yet the full newsroom is maintained.

Re: The Time for Triage - The Digital Journalist

dirckhalstead — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:48:24 -0000

Ah, that wonderful word "delusional."

I have considered myself delusional since the day I got my first Speed Graphic at the age of 16, and dreamed that I would soon become the next Robert Capa. A year later I was in Guatemala photographing a revolution, which resulted in my first double-truck spread in LIFE Magazine.

For five decades I persisted in this delusion, somehow managing to get myself on the scenes of major events, including far-flung battlefields. I would dare say that most of the great photojournalism that has been produced has been done by similar “delusional” photographers. No challenge is too great. David Burnett once defined photojournalism as “getting to see the King.” There you are in a foreign country, knowing nobody, and somehow you have to talk your way into the palace to photograph the King.

An argument can be made that nearly all great art comes from the delusional. These are people who can see and hear things that no one else can. No hurdle is too great to produce their work.

One of my favorite examples is the story of Tim Page. Tim was a young British photographer who I hired in Saigon in 1965. He later became a freelancer, shooting for Time and Life. On a medevac mission to rescue a wounded soldier, he was hit by a shell, which blew most of his brains out. After a long convelesance, he sued Time Inc for
Disability. In a San Francisco court the defense argued that it was not Time’s responsibility to pay for his injuries. He should have had his own insurance policy.
Tim’s lawyer retorted that it was common for photographers in Vietnam not to purchase such insurance, because it was considered “bad joss.”

The defense maintained that was just plain crazy. Any reasonable person committing him or herself to cover a war would make sure they had the proper insurance.

But the prosecution said that was the exact point. No sane person would insert himself into a battle unless he had no choice. Because photographers did that all the time, they were obviously “crazy” and therefore not responsible for their choices.

The court found in favor of Page. (you can see a video interview with Page at http://www.digitaljournalis...

There will always be a Tim Page out there. The trick is to find a way to pay them.

Re: How to Start to Save Photojournalism - The Digital Journalist

dirckhalstead — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:17:46 -0000

The current August/September issue has a very interesting article' BUILD THAT PAY WALL HIGH."

The author , Paul Farhi advocates that newspapers should make the cost of their online content higher. MUCH higher. He points to the Newport RI BLADE as an example. The Blade is charging $345 per year for access to their web site. Of course, they know no one will pay that much, which is precisely the point. The publisher , "Buck" Sherman wants to drive readers back to the old fashioned print edition. Daily News in print is where the money is he claims. In his view, newspapers moving to the web has been nothing but a distraction for the industry. "Ten to 15 years ago, everyone held out high hopes for the internet as a revenue source," he says,"And that never happened."

Even though newspaper ad revenue was down 18% last year, it still generated $35 billion from the print editions. Most important, the web is destroying ad seller's' power to set advertising rates. As more and more web sites chase advertising dollars, the price of those online ads has plummeted to less than a dollar per thousand. Print ads, by contrast still command $20 per cpm.

One shocker was the information that in May, on washingtonpost.com the average visitor spent 10:58 minutes on the site. That is per month! Or 21.2 seconds a day.
So what chance does an online ad stand in less time than you see a stop sign?

The article maintains that dropping or downplaying the web edition would give readers one less reason to drop their subscription.

It's worth reading.

Re: How to Start to Save Photojournalism - The Digital Journalist

dirckhalstead — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:01:30 -0000

Unfortunately, I have to agree with most of what David Campbell writes. I say unfortunately because the bottom line of what he saying is that it simply is no longer possible to practice photojournalism as a craft.
By craft, I mean what people normally do to earn money to put food on the table, pay the mortgage and educate the kids.

Now it may be possible to still earn money with a camera by switching to weddings or porn, but not in professional photo journalism. Photo journalism is very hard to do on a part time basis. It is also very expensive. I see people alongside the road every day with their tin cups or jars. They actually manage to make it through the day that way. But long before we start to do that, we will have sold our cameras.

Re: How to Start to Save Photojournalism - The Digital Journalist

dirckhalstead — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:16:43 -0000

Actually this is pretty much what I suggested yesterday. But before super sites such as the NYT (which is doing a great job with Lens Blogs), can develop aggregate sites, they still have to solve the big question of how they make money. In order for that to happen, we have to leave behind the key concept that the web is and should be free. Excuse me, I see my tail coming around the tree,,gotta run.

Re: How to Start to Save Photojournalism - The Digital Journalist

dirckhalstead — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:39:16 -0000

We need to understand that what is at stake is not photography, but photojournalism.

By definition, photojournalism must partner with other media in order to deliver its message. It is the PUBLICATION of the work that is the vital component, not simply the acquisition.

It is that publication which is endangered. When I look back at my own career, I had no trouble finding a small town weekly to work at for 5 bucks a picture. That weekly grew to be a chain of weeklies,carrying me along. Then to my first daily newspaper job, where a guy named Charlie McCarty gave me a chance. Then on to UPI. Here, I had a chance to start to hire other photographers, and I hired some really good ones. Then finally on to help start the TIME stable of contract photographers, which sent them all around the world.

The point is, there was lots of opportunity if you were willing to work hard and be persistant. Today, it would be nearly impossible for a young photographer to recreate my experience. The newspapers I worked for are all since long gone.
TIME magazine is a thin ghost of itself.

It's not the skill and commitment and perseverance of photo journalists that has changed.. It is the newspapers, magazines, wire services, picture agencies that have, and their ability financially to fund coverage.

Re: How to Start to Save Photojournalism - The Digital Journalist

dirckhalstead — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:29:13 -0000

What we are seeing here is the tiger chasing its tail around the tree.

The problem does not lie with photojournalists. If you look at our features over the past year, you realize there are as many committed, perceptive people as ever. More, in fact.

The problem, and the only problem is that the media that these people used to get assignments from, no longer can afford to do so.

Our editorial was one suggestion. We will have others in the months to come. But unless
you want to consider photojournalism as a hobby, there must be a business model that makes sense.

Re: How to Start to Save Photojournalism - The Digital Journalist

dirckhalstead — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:57:23 -0000

Although I am a long way from Ralph Nader's thought process, I was interested to see this story in Common Cause about his new novel ONLY THE SUPER RICH CAN SAVE US. He takes 700 pages to essentially say the same thing I said in the editorial

http://www.commondreams.org...

Re: How to Start to Save Photojournalism - The Digital Journalist

dirckhalstead — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:29:57 -0000

First, I am very pleased by the number and quality of comments that have been posted on our editorial.

In particular I would like to comment on the entry by Newschannelmedia. The reality is that online publications, which are certainly the future of journalism, must set more realistic advertising rates that reflects the value of the content. But with the exception of industry giants such as Google, most lack the leverage to do so. This where existing corporations such as Time Inc can make the difference. I have been maintaining for several years that the future of these publishers does not lie with production of their own content, but their ability to sell advertising. These publishers can become the aggregators of online journalism sites. Not through the old method of buying them out, but instead partnering with them. By amassing quality sites in niche markets, and taking over the responsibility of selling ads for them, these giants can leverage advertising rates.

This will result in new revenue for the sites, which can then concentrate on doing what they do best, which is to produce content.

Re: Don't Blame the Platypus - The Digital Journalist

dirckhalstead — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:05:14 -0000

I did not mean this as a slur on reporters at all. It is just that photographers and sound people are used to carrying tons of equipment. Always have. Reporters by their own accounts, consider the tools to be of lesser importance (as in pen and notepad) Photojournalists are also well acquainted with those tools and use them very effectively. But their prime concern
has to do with documenting events which require lugging and interfacing with lots of mechanical and electronic stuff
in the acquisition phase, before they can actually sit down and start to craft a report. Hence, reporters and photographers tend to think differently about how they go about their process.