Sports Illustrated photo staff gone

[robbins.photo]

I really don't like this trend. I think there is value in having editors. I think there is value in vetting content (be it print or photo or video). The more we go to blogs, websites, content aggregators, free lancers to provide content, the more susceptible we are to content manipulation and distortion.

Well not saying this applies to Sports Illustrated per see, but considering how few media outlets there are out there that don't distort content anymore I don't really find this all that surprising. Not much value in "editors" that edit things to fit their point of view and vet things based more on bias than fact.

A quick note to the peanut gallery here, not making a political statement here and have no interest in a politically based discussion. But it should be noted that the standards applied by a lot of major media outlets are, well terrible. So I can't say as I'm terribly shocked that people would have less trust in such things and find them of less value than perhaps they did in the past.

 

[KmH]

National Geographic has been using freelance, rather than staff photographers for quite some time now.

Career FAQs -- National Geographic

I'm surprised SI was still using staff photographers.

 

[imagemaker46]

Being in the sports side of photography you'd think I would be looking at all the sports magazines, to be honest the only time I look at Sports Illustrated is waiting for the dentist. There was a time I would go through the magazine, it was when the SI photographers were covering the same events I was(usually the Olympics), I wanted to see what they came up with, most of the time I wasn't too impressed, considering they would have a photographer dedicated to one sport. The SI photographers always had the best spots, when I worked as photo co-ordinator at several World Championship events, I made sure they were in priority spots along with the wire services. I got to know a lot of these guys, and while I feel sorry they have lost their jobs, they will continue to find work shooting sports for the magazine.

The world of sports photography changed when Reuters stopped covering it, when Getty took over, when NewsWire took over, when USA today/newswire took over, when everyone started paying some of the worst sports photographers I've ever known to cover pro sports.

Sports Illustrated has always had some of the best photographers in the world, not all of them, many came from AllSport, which was sold to Getty. Some of them built their reputations on working for SI alone, it came with being able to get the best positions, the best gear and shooting hundreds of rolls of film for one single frame.

Am I surprised that it happened, yes and no. Am I sorry it happened, absolutely, not just because it means people are out of work, but because photographers have been tossed out to save a multi million dollar business money. The SI swimsuit edition is a billion dollar magazine since it was started.

 

[snerd]

[Nonsense. Perhaps people LIKE YOU haven't. I have two sons, one is 22 and the other is 24. They have both bought a substantial number of magazines over the years; the youngest in particular would greatly prefer to have a print magazine, book or newspaper in his hand than something electronic.

I looked to see who agreed with you......... I knew it was Lenny before I even looked lol!!

 

[snerd]

I bought a subscription to my first magazine in 20 years.......... Outdoor Photographer. It is nice to hold it and feel the pages. I even don't mind all of the ads, as they're pertinent to me. However, I bet I'm the exception nowadays. I am totally set up for E reading. This purchase was just an impulse buy. Probably won't renew.

 

[imagemaker46]

Honestly, I don't buy magazines, I look through a few, mostly the hobby magazine I'm interested in, car magazines, that's it. I don't look look at sports magazines. I looked through a Photo shop magazine and was going to buy it until I saw it was $35.

 

[Warhorse]

Next will be NG I guess. I guess they will hire them as independent contractors with a personal services contract ... Lowering overhead with no beanies. I wish all the bean counters get fired and outsource that department.

Gary A. nailed it!

 

[Trever1t]

My feet are on the only free space on my coffee table that has photography magazines stacked 12" high .... I haven't read a single one BUT I don't intend on tossing them until I do! They've been stacking up for a year or so.

 

[407370]

I looked up sports illustrated in a well known search engine to see the quality of the sports images. Imagine my surprise seeing endless pics of swimsuits. Is it a sports magazine or soft porn?

 

[snerd]

I looked up sports illustrated in a well known search engine to see the quality of the sports images. Imagine my surprise seeing endless pics of swimsuits. Is it a sports magazine or soft porn?

Every year is the Annual Swimsuit Issue. Once a year like the one you saw.

 

[407370]

Every year is the Annual Swimsuit Issue. Once a year like the one you saw.

Where are the pics of sports?


Ahem.... let's keep their copyright in mind, even if their jobs are gone, okay?

 

[JoeW]

I think people are missing the point somewhat by focusing on the "I don't buy magazines" vs. "I still do." Clearly the internet is still popular and most magazines and newspapers that I know of, have a bigger "visual" presence (i.e.: they show more of their photographic work online) than they do in print.

SI has a substantial online presence. Maybe you haven't read their magazine at all. But while I have, I can tell you that I'm on their website on a regular basis. So there should still be a rationale for staff photographers...you'd think.

But either the online business model doesn't make sense. Or we're reaching the point where all photographers are considered sub-contractors (and not employees), people to hire for piece work or an event and then that's it. And the implication of that is: you'll basically have two tiers of "professionals"...guys who have it made, have a national presence and their name is their brand....or people who are starting out, have day jobs (other than photography), and struggle to make ends meet. And not really much in-between. Granted, I'm painting with a very broad brush...I'm speaking mostly of photojournalism and sports work here. But this is going to make it much tougher to make a career out of this kind of work.

 

[JoeW]

I really don't like this trend. I think there is value in having editors. I think there is value in vetting content (be it print or photo or video). The more we go to blogs, websites, content aggregators, free lancers to provide content, the more susceptible we are to content manipulation and distortion.

Well not saying this applies to Sports Illustrated per see, but considering how few media outlets there are out there that don't distort content anymore I don't really find this all that surprising. Not much value in "editors" that edit things to fit their point of view and vet things based more on bias than fact.

A quick note to the peanut gallery here, not making a political statement here and have no interest in a politically based discussion. But it should be noted that the standards applied by a lot of major media outlets are, well terrible. So I can't say as I'm terribly shocked that people would have less trust in such things and find them of less value than perhaps they did in the past.

I think the perspective you're taking here IS political.

Look, anytime you edit, you take a perspective. By having a magazine called "Outdoor Photography" you immediately take a perspective (b/c you don't look at "Indoor" photography). But they implication that everyone is biased, that editors always seek to slant things is, I think, a very extreme political claim.

In my experience, working with an editor, you get another set of eyes (usually with more perspective) who pushes you to get more complete (or at least more diverse) perspectives. Photos (for media anyway) rarely exist solely for themselves, they're often editorial and thus accompanying text or a story. And the editor is often there to make sure the story is clear to everyone. This becomes especially critical when the photographers aren't employees of the media outlet but are subcontractors, guys hired b/c they were cheap and local.

 

[imagemaker46]

The cuts were to save money, they save themselves having to pay out benefits to photographers that are all making six figure pay cheques. It has nothing to do with the quality of the work. They also laid on writers. SI has been using a lot of freelancers over the years. These guys will walk away with hefty payouts.

 

[photoguy99]

Corporations are all trimming, but it's not clear who they think is going to buy their products, in the long run.

A bunch of broke freelancers and contractors cobbling together a bare living with a stream of overlapping temporary gigs is what all workers in all fields will eventually be, of the trend continues.

These people won't buy SI because it's a luxury they cannot afford.