Private Presidential Pathways: last chance for "transparency?"

Of his famous photo of President John F. Kennedy, Tames said ""I wanted the blackness,
the mood that I saw with my eye."

Interested in seeing honest, revealing photographs of your American President on the job? You know – candid, un-choreographed visual records which give us glimpses of the human being occupying the most powerful office in the world?

If those kind of images might appeal to you, then run! As fast as you can, to the Averitt Center for the Arts in Downtown Statesboro. Don't delay, because this may be the last opportunity to see photographs like this.

The Averitt Center's main gallery will be featuring an exhibit titled "Private Presidential Pathways," displaying photographs by former New York Times photographer George Tames. While he covered many aspects of Washington, D.C. for nearly half-a-century, Tames developed a reputation for capturing unguarded, honest moments of Presidents with his camera.

What made Tames different were his instincts and persistence for finding something visually profound – his refusal to settle for the "herd" mentality that still often plagues news photography. Tames had an ability and desire to develop easy and informal access to powerful politicians, including – especially – the President.

Since Tames' death in 1994, both photography and politics have changed. The implementation of digital photography in reporting the news has accelerated the notion of being the first and the fastest, over all else. George Tames, on the other hand, emphasized thoroughness and familiarity to create his images. Tames was often the last to produce an image because he stayed later and shot longer than those clinging to the "herd."

And politicians have learned a lesson – all too well. Image is everything.

It started, perhaps, with Ronald Reagan. Tames daughter, Stephanie (who lives here in Statesboro), told me Wednesday that her father got frustrated with Reagan, who first made his mark as an actor in Hollywood and was quite comfortable with the traditional method of producing moving pictures, whether film or video. Television producers, editors, and their ilk seemed all-to-willing to produce multiple takes and get things "right."

A posed-but-spontaneous photo of Harry S. Truman.

Reagan was surprisingly uncomfortable with still photography, however. Once the photographer clicked the shutter, the record was made. Period. No re-takes. The image could be published. Or not. The President and his staff had no control over that.

 Stephanie Tames related a story about an image her father made of Reagan. It was an exercise in frustration. The newly-elected President invited photographers into the Oval Office. Tames wanted a picture of Reagan at work. Reagan simply wouldn't stop posing. Tames stayed longer than every one else. Finally fed up, he started packing up his gear. That's when the President picked up his papers and got back to work. And that's when Tames was able to rattle off a frame or two to get the real picture.

Today, in 2011, getting even that picture is practically impossible. Not saying that most Presidents haven't been concerned with their image, but each one since Reagan has become exponentially more guarded, especially when it comes to photography.

Much has been made of the news media's alleged infatuation with Barack Obama. It's been vilified by some. Parodied by others. However, I can tell you about one group of journalists that is not enamored with our sitting President - the pool of White House press photographers representing dozens of publications from all over the world.

It's ironic that a President who's election platform included a commitment to government "transparency" has become so elusive to those assigned to cover him.

The previous administration became frustratingly adept at limiting public appearances to simple, choreographed "photo ops" where photographers were typically allowed to make as many photographs as possible while walking between the entrance and exit of a room.

I participated in one of these events when I worked in Savannah and the G-8 conference was held in Sea Island in 2004. I got the honor of waiting hours to photograph George W. Bush and Russia's Vladimir Putin sitting in a small room in chairs next to each other. It was like a very short rock show with all the strobe lights going off as many photographers simply laid on their shutter releases until we were ushered (herded) out. The whole thing lasted about 20 seconds. Rattle rattle, here come the cattle.

After promising greater "transparency," the present administration has gone so far as to eliminate even the cattle call photo op. Right from the start, the photographers assigned to covering the White House were excluded from the President's first day in the Oval Office. From the controversial "do-over" oath of office. And a month later, from a historic meeting between the President and the Dalai Lama.

In all these instances, the White House preferred, instead, to allow only Official White House photographer Pete Souza to witness these events with his camera, who's images were subsequently distributed via the Flickr photo sharing web site. The response from photo editors everywhere was immediate.

... information is "more valuable to the public if you know where it's coming from."

Michael Oreskes, Managing Editor for U.S. News, the Associated Press

It's clear that the White House staff saw this as an opportunity to take advantage of the internet. To "democratize" the process of distributing photographs by allowing anyone to download these photos from Flickr rather than letting the wire services distribute pictures to subscribing news outlets. See for yourself: here's a link to the Flickr White House photostream. That's good, right?

Well, it's also clear this was seen as an opportunity to exert greater control over the image of the President. While the credibility of Pete Souza, a veteran news photographer and educator who also served as Ronald Reagan's personal photographer in the White House during the 1980s, is widely-respected, wire services refused to distribute these photographs based primarily on two concerns: 1) this practice eliminates the potential diversity of images available to the public, and 2) the difficulty of determining the authenticity of an image not produced by someone on their staff.

Changing of the guard. Lyndon B. Johnson eyes Richard M. Nixon.

Even in a clearly controlled situation, each photographer makes decisions about how to compose their photographs. When to click the shutter. How to interpret what they witnessed. And each publication makes a choice about which photographs to publish.

No more. What's the harm, you say? Well, in an era where the authenticity of every digital photograph is in question, a multitude of photographers shooting the same event helps minimize the potential for deception. Photographers, or editors, or staffers in charge of publicity, are unlikely to manipulate, digitally or otherwise, photographs or situations for their own purposes if there are a multitude of images available from different sources.

One of the core principles that makes the news media relevant and useful is its diversity of voices and points-of-view. Information often becomes credible when a consensus is produced from many independent sources. And this principle is just as true of photography as any other medium of communication.

Ultimately, the question for you, the audience, is whether or not you are satisfied with our government representatives being the only source of visual information about themselves. I'm all for breaking with tradition as long as it serves a greater good. Are you being best served by this policy?

 Before you answer, though, please go see Tames' photographs. They will be on display until June 15.

He left us with lasting images of our Presidents. Ones that really stick in our minds, individually and collectively.

 Tames' photographs are ones that tell us something of the human beings who occupied the office of the President of the United States – their emotions. Their personal style. Their egos. Their strengths. And sometimes their frailties.

Why are these images so important? Why am I telling you to run – as fast as you can – to see them?

Because we may never see their like again.

The Averitt Center’s main gallery is open Tuesday-Friday from 10 a.m. – 7 p.m. and on Saturdays from 10 a.m. – 4 p.m.

Beyond the obvious: images from Egypt

© 2011 Laura El-Tantawy/ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

I'm sure many of us are following the developments in Egypt. We're inundated with thousands of images chronicling the anti-goverment protests. Most of them being moved by the wire services are just what you would expect. Violent clashes. Danger. Drama.

There is another side to these protests. A more human side. And some photographers are doing their darnedest to chronicle that, as well.

I ran across some of these image at burn. magazine, an on-line photography site curated by great Magnum and National Geographic photographer David Alan Harvey. The photographs are by Egyptian photographer Laura El-Tantawy, who also writes about her experiences while covering the protests.

Visually, these photographs are haunting and atmospheric. We get to see the faces and begin to understand some of the participants in a much more intimate way than the rock'em sock'em wire photos allow.

As El-Tantawy says:

"Tahrir (Liberation) Square has become a microcosm of Egyptian society. The protesters here represent all classes of people, from the art world, politicians, engineers, lawyers, bankers, school teachers, government employees, construction workers, plumbers. They all came here to fight for something."

The best photojournalism not only addresses the "what," but also the "who" and the "why." The best photographs are the ones that move us. The ones that appeal to our humanity, whether the subjects are halfway across the world or right here in our own backyards.

Take a look. Tell me what you think. What images have you viewed from Egypt, and which ones stick with you? Why?

Link: Cairo: Quest for Liberation

Half a Tank: I HAD to share this ...

Yolanda Vazquez walks with her six-year-old son Jonathan down the hallway of the
Hilda M. Barg Homeless Prevention Center. Photo by Michael Williamson/The Washington Post

This is the kind of link I would normally share on my tumbleblog. Especially since it's a series that ended over a year ago. But I just randomly happened across it. I couldn't believe I missed it in the first place. I haven't even had a chance to get into it and experience it for myself. But I decided to share it right away. It's the kind of work I get excited about because it combines topics and interests I've always been drawn to.

The subject of this post is a series, done in the form of a blog, by two Washington Post staffers, writer Theresa Vargas and photographer Michael Williamson. The series, called Half a Tank: Along Recession Road, was a 5-month long quest to find photographs and stories about the lives of ordinary folks and how the current economic recession has altered their lives. The project ended in October of 2009, but it's still available for viewing.

I can't say I'm familiar with Ms. Vargas' work, but I'm acutely aware of Williamson's. I seem to always be just a step behind Michael Williamson. Or he behind me. He briefly left the newspaper business to teach photojournalism at Western Kentucky University – my Alma Mater – just a couple of years after I left. And he joined the staff at the Washington Post when I was still working in that metro area – shortly before I moved to Georgia.

I've never met the man but I've always been strongly drawn to his work, which can have a sort of dark, Americana feel to it. A feel that harkens back to the days when Life magazine was the chief window to the world. And, like myself, the guy has an affinity for the road. Getting out of the nation's megopolis, off the interstates. That's where you'll find America and its history. Williamson has driven countless miles. Hopped trains with hobos. He's probably hoofed more miles than many of us have driven.

I'm also keen on history and the power of photography to document and preserve visual records of people and eras for all time. Williamson has literally traveled in the footsteps of iconic photographer Walker Evans, who, with writer James Agee, produced the book Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, which depicted the lives of sharecroppers in the South during the Great Depression. Fifty years later, working with writer Dale Maharidge, Williamson chronicled the descendants of those portrayed in Evans' work. The resulting book, And Their Children After Them, won a Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction in 1990.

While following in Evans' tracks and sharing with him a fondness for photographing the details of cultures and places, I think, personally, Williamson's work often resembles, in both in style and intent, that of Robert Frank, who's momentous book The Americans was critically panned when first published. The pictures of both photographers are unsentimental in their blunt and sometimes brutal honesty in their depiction of America – especially the poor, the downtrodden, and the homeless. But they are pictures clearly made by the mind and soul of an artist. Evidence of the American Dream are everywhere in Williamson's work, but his images powerfully remind us, sometimes uncomfortably so, that there's still plenty of work to be done in this great democratic experiment of ours. While Robert Frank's view of the American Dream was that of an outsider due to his immigrant status, Williamson's is due to his upbringing.

It's natural that Williamson would be drawn to the road and to downtrodden subjects. He grew up in foster homes and orphanages in over 15 states.  His brings his own experiences to his work and gives these people a voice through his photographs. It's important and notable work. Photojournalism at its very best.

A self portrait Michael made in North Dakota.
Photo by Michael Williamson/The Washington Post

Please make some time to view Half a Tank: Along Recession Road. One caveat, though. The blog reads from the end to the beginning as each blog post replaces the one before it. I wish the Post would re-format the piece so it is easier to experience it chronologically, as if we were traveling with the two journalists.

Still, it will be worth the effort. Maybe I'll finally meet Michael Williamson, one day. Until then, we're all privileged to experience his journeys and historic chronicles through his eyes.

Update (Nov. 19): Michael Williamson's latest project, From middle class to poverty, was just posted on the Washington Post website

Miraculous Rescue, Remarkable Reunion: more on how photographs connect us

Miraculous Rescue, Remarkable Reunion - News Story - WCVB Boston

Photographing tragedy is often controversial. Photojournalists are sometimes accused of being heartless ambulance chasers and sharks at a feeding frenzy when they turn their cameras on the suffering.

But I still firmly believe there is great social value in documenting the human condition – all of it. Sometimes, the value is not understood until years later.

Photographing breaking news has always been the forte of Boston Herald photographer Stanley Forman. In the late 1970s, Forman garnered an unequaled three straight Pulitzer Prizes in a row. Perhaps his best known photograph, and most controversial, is one that shows a woman and a child falling from a collapsed fire escape during an apartment fire. The woman died on impact and the child miraculously survived.  It's a heart-wrenching depiction of the worst kind of tragedy. The woman's death was not in vain, however. In short order, the City of Boston revamped it's safety regulations governing fire escapes. While many condemned the Herald for publishing the photo, this question, as always, remains: would such forceful action by city officials have ever taken place had the picture not been published?

The ultimate value of some photographs may not be fully understood until years later. The story linked above is such an example. Sometimes, we are quick to condemn photographs of tragedy in the name of protecting the victims. In this case, an innocent child who lost everything. The photographs depict the heroism of the firefighters in this instance, and that's of great importance. However, we see how, over thirty years later, these photographs and the person who made them helped a woman make sense of and better understand her own personal history.

The fact is, sometimes photographing tragedy actually helps victims cope. Many subjects of disturbing photographs never forgive the perceived invasion into their private experience and emotions. However, many others come to appreciate, over time, the attention given to their circumstances.

In his book Lessons in Life and Death, photojournalist David LaBelle says that photographing tragedy actually has a therapeutic value. That confronting mortality and that of loved ones can help people appreciate life itself. Photographs of tragedy, if used compassionately, can serve as a form of psychotherapy for society, as a whole and on a personal level.

And the key is compassion. As LaBelle says, "Love doesn't always wear a smile."

In the end, Tammi Brownlee's story is just another example of how photographs can reach across space and time and connect us as human beings.

To see more of Stanley Forman's work, click here: Stanleyformanphotos.com

Hannah Forman

Politics aside ... I am a biased journalist

I'm not much for politics. Sure, I've got my opinions. Plenty of strongly held ones, too. But I keep'em to myself when I'm on the job. You know, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, which are the true benchmarks of professional journalism, not the ubiquitous, misunderstood, and misapplied term "objectivity."

When I'm covering political events, the story I always try to tell is the human interest angle. In the interest of fairness, I'll tell you straight up that my personal bias in my work is that of humanity. One of the great advantages of using photographs as a means of communication is that we can see ourselves in other people, regardless of cultural, political, religious or personal beliefs.

In our increasingly polarized political atmosphere (and I admit that's an opinion based on my personal observations), I'm always looking for little nuggets of humanity. When Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, visited Statesboro Saturday as part of his "Fire Pelosi" tour to stir up participation in November elections, the political electricity in the air couldn't be felt more strongly.

At the end of Steele's speech, a citizen reminded him to address an issue of great importance to her. Honestly, I couldn't really understand much of anything she said from my vantage point, but she was clearly feisty and her comments elicited side-splitting laughter – especially from Steele himself. Did I mention doubled over with laughter?

She was asking Steel for a definitive statement on whether or not the Republican National Committee was going to support Christine O'Donnell, the surprise winner of the Republican primary for a Senate seat in Delaware. In other words, she was holding the leader of her political party accountable, and she was doing it with humor.

Is there anything much more human than humor? Any time we can see opponents, adversaries, or anyone different from ourselves as the human beings that they are, well, I think there is great hope for humanity itself, because that is the starting point for any progress.

So there it is. My bias. Sue me if you don't like it, but don't say you weren't advised.

By the way, Steel said he and the National Party have started transferring funds to O'Donnell's campaign and would support her in every way.

I am a journalist, after all.

After his speech during a stop at the Holiday Inn in Statesboro on his "Fire Pelosi" tour, Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele doubles over laughing at the spunkiness of Hazel Jordan of Savannah, right.

September 11th in 2010: here, there, and everywhere ...

This is how our local Statesboro and Bulloch County public safety officers honored their own on Saturday, September 11, 2010.

Tim Grams of the Statesboro Fire Department, left, rings a bell to honor safety officials who lost their lives on September 11, 2001 during a ceremony at Bulloch Memorial Gardens Saturday.

And this is a link to one of my favorite photo blogs, The Big Picture by the Boston Globe, which features many pictures from many sources about how people remembered 9/11.

The Tribute in Lights illuminates the sky over lower Manhattan on September 11, 2010. (REUTERS/Gary Hershorn)

Remembering 9/11 from behind the lens ...

Bill Biggart's final photograph. He was killed when the second Trade Center 

tower collapsed on top of him minutes after this exposure.

Many of the world's greatest photojournalists were in New York City on September 11, 2001. I thought I'd post just a few links to recollections of 9/11 from the men and women whose photographs will help ensure we never forget.

• Steve McCurry
• James Nachtwey
• Seeing the Horror: first hand accounts from numerous photographers covering the events of 9/11
• Bill Biggart's Final Exposures: surviving digital images document Ground Zero before photographer loses his life in the collapse of the second tower.

I'll try to add more links as I find them. Feel free to add your own.

The eyes of the beholder: more on contests ...

1st place Feature Photo and Photo of the Year, 2009 Georgia AP Awards, Division A.

There's been another round of annual contest awards, and it might be worth further examining their significance, which I began to do in this post: The award is not the reward.

There are two main press associations in the state of Georgia that conduct annual contests: the Georgia Press Association and the Georgia Associated Press Association (this link is dated, but the best I could find.) The GPA contest is open to every newspaper in the state. The Georgia AP contest is open to members in the state who subscribe to the AP wire service, so many smaller papers are not represented. Both contest have this in common – they are broken down into divisions so that papers with similar circulations are competing against one another instead of with everyone in the state. The Statesboro Herald competes in the Division D (Circulation 8,000–under, daily newspapers) in GPA and in Division A (circulation 10,000–under) in Georgia AP. The Herald recently garnered 15 awards in the Georgia AP contest. Suffice to say, I'm very proud that my publication and my co-workers have been recognized.

On one level, I like the breakdown. It gives everyone an opportunity to be recognized for outstanding work. On the other hand, it allows almost every publication to designate itself as "award-winning." Personally, I wish they would add all-division awards for each award category because I think some of the smaller newspapers are doing journalism that measures up to what the larger organizations are producing. That's significant and that kind of  commitment and achievement should be recognized when it happens, considering the difference in resources between larger and smaller publications.

One of the most interesting aspects of these awards is comparing what stories and photographs are chosen in each of these concurrent contests. Sometimes the differences are striking because most newspapers submit the same bodies of work to both contests. It can provide a fascinating study and insight into what people consider to be outstanding journalism and photojournalism. While the public, in general, probably has wildly varying ideas about this, you can see that practicing journalists serving as contest judges have varying ideas, as well. Because of that, sometimes you have to take winning contests with a grain of salt. As a photojournalist, I am always honored by recognition, but sometimes I find winning selections curious.

The photo at the top of this post won First Place for Feature photo in Georgia AP. This was the photo that won First place for Feature photo in GPA:

First Place Feature photo in 2009 GPA contest, Division D.

First Place Sports Feature – 2009 Georgia AP

Both pictures failed to place at all in the corresponding contest. Similarly, in the Sports Action category, a Georgia AP first place winner failed to place in GPA while 2nd and 3rd place winners in GPA failed to place in Georgia AP. Further, Georgia AP 1st and 2nd place winners in Sports Feature failed to place in GPA, where a complete different picture placed 2nd.

Same group of pictures submitted. Completely different sets of values and sensibilities demonstrated by two sets of judges. It wasn't with just my photographs, either. The winners lists and selections varied wildly from one contest to another, although you could get a sense of what types of photographs some judges seemed to prefer.

Over the years, I've been able to sense when photographs are judged by fellow photographers and when reporters or editors who work primarily with words are making selections. It's actually pretty easy to tell, particularly in the feature photograph category. Writers are inevitably drawn to the cute, cuddly photographs – especially ones with kids and animals. Photographers tend to look for something else. Moments. Light. Composition. Symbolism. You can tell when judges appreciate the subtle things that make photographs memorable.

First Place Sports Action – 2009 Georgia AP

However, even when judges are among the most respected photojournalists in the business, personal values and taste come into play. If you get a chance, check out the web sites of the two most important photojournalism contests in our country: "The Best of Photojournalism" sponsored chiefly by National Press Photographers Association and the "Pictures of the Year" contest sponsored chiefly by the University of Missouri School of Journalism. The NPPA and Missouri once co-sponsored a single "Pictures of the Year" contest, and it's interesting to compare and contrast the results since the split a few years ago. Categories and breakdowns continue to diverge every year, and you can get a sense of differing philosophies.

The work of former Rocky Mountain News photographer Todd Heisler is an interesting study. His amazing and touching behind-the-scenes visual account of funerals for Colorado Marines who returned from Iraq in caskets in 2006 won the Pulitzer Prize for Feature photography that year. In the "Pictures of the Year" contest, the same work, split into two parts, yielded only a Third Place for Issue Reporting Picture Story and an Award of Excellence (an honorable mention) in the Newspaper News Picture Story category, but Heisler was honored with second place for Newspaper Photographer of the Year. The same body of work garnered him a First Place for Best Published Picture Story in the "Best of Photojournalism" contest, yet he was completely absent from the list of photographers considered for Photojournalist of the Year.

Ultimately, the presence of his work in all three contests speaks to its significance, but it also goes to show that recognition is highly dependent on a particular judging panel's standards.

About this 2009 Photo of the Year in Georgia AP Division A (also the top photograph) ...

It was a bit of a surprise, especially to the Herald's Publisher and Executive Editor. Of all the photographs I made in 2009, perhaps the most remembered is the one that took first place in the News Photograph category (in the Herald's division) of both state contests.

First Place General News, 2009 Georgia Press Association (Div. D). First Place Spot News, 2009 Georgia AP (Div. A).

Personally, I think it's the most important photograph I made during the year. When a far-away war touches us so personally, so intimately, folks take notice. Why the (perceived) snuff? Well, it can't hurt to try and get inside the judges' heads.

This is what the judges said about the Photo of the Year: "Great use of Light. Unique moment from what could have been a predictable event."

And I'm flattered by that comment. I cover numerous festivals every year, and it's a real challenge to produce photographs that don't look the same as the previous year ... and the year before that ... and so on.

Once, when asked about the artistic quality of his work, even when covering war or other horrific conditions, photojournalist James Nactwey said:

"I am not intending to create art but rather to create a profound human communication..."

While my primary role as a photojournalist is not to be an artist, sometimes I do try to create art. Sometimes life presents itself in unique moments. A certain quality of light, a moment, a composition come together that helps us examine common, even mundane facets of life in a new way. Certainly, to appreciate everyday life can be profound.

However, the photojouralist's role becomes even more important when life presents us with overtly profound moments. We try to make visual records of historic moments that help define us as a people and a community at particular points in time. I'll always feel the funeral of Georgia National Guard Sgt. Brock Chavers was one of those moments.

Again, to get inside the judges' heads ... they had to choose four Photos of the Year – one from each division. And, sadly (for our military families), there were several funerals in Georgia for soldiers who lost their lives overseas and many photographers who documented them. Perhaps they felt one of these photos was enough to represent all four divisions, and there were images that may have communicated the tragedy and loss more forcefully.

My photograph of grief is subtle. If you put it in a lineup with other funeral pictures, it probably wouldn't be the first to jump out at you. The photographs that depict loved ones wailing and crying are the ones that hit you in the gut and make you feel the loss more immediately. Some may actually prefer my photograph of the Chavers family for that very reason. It's difficult for many of us to be confronted, often graphically, with another's grief.

That's not why I'm proud of this photograph, however. What makes this photograph special, to me, is that it's their story. Brock Chavers' family. A military family's story of loss. Their dignity. Their quiet resignation and numb acceptance. A young boy's look of incomprehension.

That's the most important photograph I made in 2009. Does that make it the best photograph? The "Photo of the Year?"

I guess that's in the eyes of the beholder.

The award is not the reward

First place Feature Photograph (Category D) Paulson the boxer 

looks disappointed as he and owners Patrick and Valorie Thompson 

depart the rained-out 2009 Kiwanis Ogeechee Fair Parade on 

Main Street.

I was in Jekyll Island this past Friday. That was the date and location of the 2010 Georgia Press Association's Better Newspaper Contest Awards Banquet. And I won a few awards for work submitted by my boss to the contest. I'm not alone, though. Our staff did really well all around for the year 2009. The Herald won Best Web Site in the daily newspaper category and was the first place winner for General Excellence in category D (under 8,000 circulation).

It's nice to be recognized by your peers for a job well done, and the banquet is a good opportunity to rub elbows and bond with other journalists in the state.

Sometimes, I think it's useful to put awards in perspective, though. Someone recently e-mailed me a quote from the book God Never Blinks by Cleveland (OH) Plain Dealer columnist Regina Brett:

"... If the readers don't break you, the annual ritual of journalism awards will. Every year editors submit your work for writing contests. You don't want to care about the awards, but everybody does. The news business attracts
people with twisted egos. Newsrooms are full of egomaniacs
with inferiority complexes. We have to be great or else we are
nothing."

Granted, I don't have experience, other than on a freelance basis, working in the newsroom of a major metro daily newspaper. It's not hard to imagine, however, the clash of pressure and egos. And I would never suggest that awards don't mean something to journalists. Awards mean additional exposure and recognition that can lead to career advancement. But I think the characterization of journalists as egomaniacs might be overstating things a bit.

The field of journalism runs the gamut of humanity, from sociopathic egotists to philanthropic saints. Most of us are somewhere in-between, just like every other profession.

First Place Photo Essay

(Category D)

Have I known journalists with big egos? Of course. Have I known photographers that shoot for awards? Sure I have. But I have also heard some readers accuse journalists of exploiting subjects for the purpose of winning awards and making gobs of money, especially when the subject involves death or tragedy. In this case, I have to speak up.

I can tell you, for one thing, it's sure not money that motivates most journalists. If the public saw the salaries that most journalists make, they would laugh – or cry. Twenty Pulitzer Prize winners are awarded $10,000 each annually. Only 2 of the categories are awarded to photographers. While 10 Grand is nothing to sneeze at, winning perhaps the most prestigious and well-known award for journalism in this country isn't going to make you financially independent. No, you don't enter this field for the money.

Do major awards feed the ego? Sure they can. But if you peruse galleries of past award winners and read interviews with the winners, I think you'll find that the subjects are intimately meaningful to those photographers. Subjects or topics they feel need exposure and discussion. The award itself isn't nearly as important to these photojournalists as the exposure. Not exposure for themselves, but rather exposure for their subjects or topics.

Awards are nice. Sometimes, they're great. But my experience tells me that most journalists are not primarily motivated by winning awards. The news media is frequently vilified and criticized by the public at large – for our egos, for our bias – regardless of the awards. Brett goes on to say:

"I found the secret to complete freedom from gossip, judgment, criticism, doubt, and the opinions of others.

Humility."

There's plenty about this business to keep us humble. Fact is, most of us won't go on to win major awards. Lots of people leave the profession for more lucrative and less stressful occupations. I think the reason most of us choose this career, and stay in it,  is because we have a talent – be it writing, photography, etc – that can be used to benefit others. I wrote a blog, Now being served: Awareness, a while back about this very topic. I think most people who enter the field of journalism have a need to share, above all else.

First Place News Photograph (Category D) Major General William 

T. Nesbitt, Adjutant General of the Georgia National Guard, 

presents the flag which adorned the casket of National Guard Sgt. 

Brock Chavers to his wife, Minnie, and his two children during 

Chavers' interment at Bulloch Memorial Gardens.

Scott Bryant, award-winning photographer.

I can't help but cringe a little every time I hear that. When I think of award-winning photographers, I think of folks like fellow Western Kentucky University alumnus Rick Loomis of the Los Angeles Times, or Carol Guzy of the Washington Post, or Clarence Williams, whom I once worked with at a weekly newspaper in Northern Virginia – just to name a few. I could go on and on, but I won't.

These are people who win Pulitzer Prizes and World Press Photo contests. Regular winners in the Best of Photojournalism or Pictures of the Year contests. They are the big dogs in the photojournalism world. They are the ones who sacrifice personal lives, immerse themselves in cultures and conditions that are often emotionally wrenching, and sometimes put themselves in harm's way to bring us images that enlighten us about the world we live in. More than ever, the world is our community.

The decisions we make can have global consequences, and we need to make decisions with our eyes wide open. We need these great photographers to help us see.

Me? Mentioned in that same breath? Award-winning?

I've made a life working at smaller newspapers, in smaller communities. Partly by choice. Partly by circumstance. I doubt my work will ever be considered for major national or international awards. But I'd still like to think that my chronicles of daily life here in this community have value. When my photos win awards, it means exposure for my community. That Statesboro and Bulloch County are too part of the human experience. That we live meaningful lives that are worthy of attention outside of our own community.

So, congratulations, Statesboro Herald readers, on your GPA awards!

The importance of photo captions and the anatomy of a correction

Statesboro High School honor graduate Anissa Fetzer 

I screwed up.

Plain and simple. It was an honest mistake, but an avoidable one.

We just finished up graduation season. A couple of Saturdays ago, I had to cover all three Bulloch County public high school graduations in one day. It means shooting an insane amount of pictures and dashing around to get proper identifications for any pics that might get published.

Those IDs are mandatory. It's a non-negotiable professional standard for any photojournalist because proper captioning is elemental. Good captions are part of what set a real pro apart from the rest.

And I dropped the ball. Sometimes IDs are difficult to acquire, but the effort should always be made – if you're a pro. In most cases, that means approaching your subjects and asking them for their information. It's not always possible. While I was covering the first graduation ceremony, I noticed an ecstatic graduate, sobbing uncontrollably, shedding unmistakable tears of joy when she returned to her seat. I focused in with my telephoto zoom and was able to make several frames of a moment that I hoped would move our readers as much as I was moved. I was sure I had my lead picture for the next day's front page.

The problem? She was seated right smack dab in the middle of the seating area with a steady stream of graduates exiting the stage between me and her. Sometimes, I will approach – as stealthily as possible – a graduate at or near the end of a row to make sure I get the proper information. This was going to be a tough ID, though, because access was nearly impossible.

Darren Brinson, center, waves to family and friends.

Plan B. I moved to the other side of the arena where the teachers were seated and quietly approached. I whispered to a couple of them that I need some help. I pointed out the student I had photographed. Then I showed them the pictures on the LCD on my digital camera. One teacher said she didn't know her, but another said she thought she did and checked her program. She conferred with another teacher and asked a student at the end of the row. She gave me the name and I felt confident I got it right. Still, I intended to seek out the student after the ceremony to double check, but she disappeared into the crowd at the conclusion and I never was able to catch up with her.

That picture did end up running as lead on the front page, and all was well – until the graduate's mother called the paper on Tuesday. Great picture. Wrong name.

What should have been a keepsake front page for a graduate and her family turned out to be an embarrassment for myself and the Statesboro Herald. In the end, most of our readers will forgive the error. The picture still conveys an honest, story-telling emotional moment, but the accompanying information was inaccurate. And if you've been reading this blog at all, you know that I've been beating the accuracy drum when it comes to images. It's a mistake and it underscores the importance of photo captions.

Shouldn't a good picture speak for itself? Well, yes, to the extent that it can speak for itself. Photographs are a powerful means to communicate some things better than any other medium. Emotions, first and foremost. They can confirm reality of an event or situation, also. However, pictures often – if not most of the time – need a little help from words to best understand what they are communicating. Captions add information to help us place photographs in their proper context.

Ronnie Arline, center, conducts as Jarrell Robinson, left, 

auditions for Chelsea S. Waters, right, who's preparing 

to sing the national during Portal High School's 

Commencement at Hanner Fieldhouse. Robinson

wanted Waters to know he was there for her

- in case she needed help.

So what makes a good photo caption? It starts with the inclusion of certain basic information. One of the first things you learn in journalism and news writing is The Five Ws: Who, What, When, Where, and Why. They are basic questions a news story should answer. They are the starting point for a good photo caption, as well.

< The most basic is the "Who." That means the main subjects of any photograph should be identified with their full names, correctly spelled. If there is more than one subject, the caption should identify the position of each person. "Far right," or "upper left," for example. The What, When, and Where also add certain factual information to help establish accuracy and relevancy. The Why is often what separates a really good caption from run-of-the-mill ones.

Photographs, as they are initially captured, don't lie. But they can mislead or misrepresent if the context in which they were taken is not made clear. Good captions can also expand on the understanding of a photograph. A quote, a fact, or a statistic can reinforce what the photograph is meant to convey.

Eye-track studies on readers tell us captions are extremely important. The older studies done on newspaper readers suggested most test subjects read photo captions before they read story text. Newer studies on web-reading habits are even more interesting, suggesting that story briefs and captions get eyes even before the photographs themselves. Because of that, captions become a critical measure of a publication's credibility . Captions count!

The photograph below, from Georgia Southern University's Spring Commencement, is an example how words and pictures can work together to tell a story within a story, and how it's relevant. A picture that ran on Mothers Day, no less.

Catherine Shirley gives daughter Beth Roakes, 24, a big hug at the conclusion of Georgia Southern University's Spring Commencement at Paulson Stadium in Statesboro, Ga. on Saturday, May 8, 2010. Roakes, an Information Systems major from Newnan, Ga., tricked out her graduation cap to thank her mother for putting her through college.

Police in some states are arresting those videotaping their actions: an assault on YOUR First Amendment rights?

Are Cameras the New Guns? (via National Press Photographers Association)

This is disturbing, folks. Read the article linked above. Some states are now saying that it is illegal to video tape or record on-duty police officers, citing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws which state that all parties must consent to the recording.

The incidents are increasing and several have every bit the appearance of reprisals on the part of police since the arrests have happened well after the initial incidents. What's even more surprising is that state supreme courts are actually upholding the arrests and convictions. 

I teach a section on First Amendment rights and Press Law in my photojournalism class at Georgia Southern University, and I know for a fact that Federal courts have already ruled on this matter. In Smith v. City of Cumming, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in 2000 that that citizens have a First Amendment right to videotape the conduct of police officers in public places. Further, that 

"The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest."

First Amendment rights are all too often framed in terms of "freedom of the press" – or in modern terms, the news media – in their freedom to gather and disseminate information. In the eyes of the law, the news media is not afforded any freedoms beyond that of every citizen. This is really about all of us. 

Part of my job is to witness and record public officials doing their duty. An elementary part of the job, in fact. I am happy to say that I have never photographed an incident of police abuse. I have seen overwhelmingly professional, sometimes downright heroic actions on the part of police officers.

Personally, I just can't understand the mentality of some who would hinder the efforts to bring to light the conduct of our public safety officers. Frankly, they don't get enough coverage for all the good things they do on the job, as opposed to the the cheesy things done on the side to garner positive publicity. They should want to be seen as both the professionals and the human beings they are.

On the other hand, police officers should want abuse of authority to be exposed and properly dealt with. That kind of conduct sullies and dishonors the entire profession, just as the conduct of a few unethical journalists compromises the credibility of the rest of us.

Seriously, can anyone make a rational case that recording the actions of public officials on public property is NOT in the public interest? 

Seriously?

What do you think?

Not again!

Morgantown newspaper removes three legislators from front-page photo

The above report from West Virgina Public Broadcasting is making the rounds. It's the latest, and one of the most embarrassing examples of utterly unethical photo manipulation in the news.

We're supposed to report the news, not make it. Right? And this is certainly making the news for all the wrong reasons.

I hope I was crystal clear in my previous post about the use of Adobe Photoshop in the newsroom.

The most disturbing aspect of this report is the reaction of The Dominion Post editor Geri Ferrara. She is surprised anyone would object to the manipulation. For some reason, she seems to think that designating the picture as a "photo illustration" in the caption is sufficient. Further, she believes the paper's policy of not publishing photos of politicians running for office trumps accuracy and honesty in her publication's visual reportage.

I'd like to further quote National Press Photography Association Ethics Chair John Long:

"If a picture looks real – in the context of news – it better be real. You cannot caption away a visual lie."

Visual illiteracy is the culprit, in this case. If photographs and other types of visual journalism were given the same respect as words, these kinds of transgressions wouldn't occur in the first place.

I feel the need to apologize for one of my so-called colleagues.

Folks, you should expect information reported in the news to be accurate. It's all about credibility. Without, I don't have a job. Do I?

Thoughts?

The future of photography: Photographers not necessary ...

Adobe further undermining professionalism and journalistic ethics?

I am again piggybacking on Mark Johnson's content over at Visual Journalism, but this is worth sharing.

Software giant Adobe® is yet again updating their ubiquitous Photoshop® image editing software. One of the most significant new features is what they call "content-aware fill," which essentially allows you to select all kinds of objects within your image and almost imperceptibly delete them as if they were never there – easy as pie. Check out the YouTube video demonstrating some of the capabilities of this feature, which may have serious implications.

Pretty slick, eh? There are plenty of photographers, artists, and graphics professionals drooling over this capability. It's a real time-saver, they are saying. Maybe they shouldn't be so hasty. Content-aware fill doesn't do anything new. This kind of editing has been possible for a long time. What it now does is make this kind of editing easy for anyone to do very quickly. All that money and time spent on Photoshop® training could be down the drain for thousands of graphics and photography professionals who charge upwards of $150 an hour for retouching services.

Anyone notice the image used for the first example in the video? Poorly composed. Ugly light. Just an incredibly amateurish image, yet we were told this picture was for a real life client.  Amazing. Just what is Adobe really trying to sell? Don't want to pay for a professional photographer? That's okay, Photoshop will fix everything. Don't know anything about composition. Fix it in Photoshop. Don't know anything about lighting? Fix it in Photoshop. Don't have the right equipment for the job? Well, you know ...

Is this the future of photography? No photographer necessary? Funny thing is, this has been brewing for a while. The talent many clients seek out these days are those who know all the Photoshop tricks, rather than professional image makers. Now, Adobe is making it so easy, you don't need to know any tricks. No talent or knowledge necessary, either.

"Pictures have power when they are real, and real photographs have the power to change society."
John Long, Ethics Chair for the National Press Photographers Association

What does this mean for my profession? It further undermines the credibility of any image produced by working photojournalists. The public needs to believe that the images made by photojournalists are honest and accurate representations of the subjects and scenes they photograph. News photographers who change and alter their images to suit their personal aesthetic tastes or to further their careers are lying to the public. Every year we hear about these photographers and their ethical lapses. It may cost these photographers their jobs, but it costs the rest of us credibility – our work has little value if our audience doesn't not see our images as believable. With the new Photoshop CS5, it's now easier than ever to deceive the public with photographs.

Do you believe the images you see in the news are real? Technology is creating a new paradigm about information and about images. Only a fool would try and bottle up the techno-genie. So I ask you, what are the benchmarks of reliable information in this new, emerging digital world? Is my commitment to ethical newsgathering and presentation enough? What do you need from me, people, so you believe my visual testimonies are accurate?

If you are interested, please follow this link for a detailed, technical explanation about how I use Photoshop in my work and about the ethical standards which I abide by.

The Corporate Runaround (Part 2) ...

Okay, enough games. The reason for Part 1 of this post was to point out a problem I frequently run into in the course of covering news -- that of corporate policies towards the news media.

My goal Monday was to inform and show public interest in the opening of a new restaurant in town. While I was greeted cordially by the general manager at Olive Garden®, I was also informed that I would need to stay in the front welcome area, and that their policy was to not allow their patrons to be photographed. Of course, they were the only reason I was there. He said he would double check.

He went into the back and returned with a gentleman dressed out in an executive chef-type outfit. I assumed he was one of those consultant-types from the corporate headquarters that specializes in getting new restaurants off the ground and making sure that they conformed to company standards. He repeated that the company policy was not to let patrons be photographed.

Now, I can understand this to an extent. But my intent was not to rush in like Rambo and make pictures paparazzi-style. "Well, I think it's important to show public interest in your restaurant's opening," I said. "What if I asked permission before I made any pictures of customers?"

The man simply shook his head "no."

Hmmmmm. "How 'bout this? Again, to show public interest, what if I photographed customers from the back - so that they are unidentifiable - with your staff waiting on them?" I implored.

This time, Chef Stick-to-the-Rules rolled his eyes, shook his head "no" again, and said "I suggest you take pictures on the outside of the restaurant."

A little frustrated, I  responded "Well, that's not news. People have been looking at the outside of this restaurant for months."

He simply shrugged, turned, and left me once again with the general manager, who had no objections to me photographing the staff welcoming customers in the front, just as long as I didn't show any customers, who were now streaming in steadily.

So I was left to my own creative devices to make an interesting picture, albeit one that really didn't give our readership an accurate representation of the event.

I detailed this encounter because it's one I frequently run into. Local businesses tend to welcome coverage from their local newspaper. However, local extensions of big corporations or chain franchises are rather balky, to say the least, when it comes to coverage. Their mostly inflexible policies towards news media reflect suspiciousness and outright disdain. Local managers who wouldn't mind some coverage of their establishments usually decline anyway, either in fear of making situational exceptions to corporate policy or having to navigate their way up the corporate ladder themselves seeking permission.

Remember the adage "bad publicity is better than no publicity?" Well, the opposite of that tends to be standard practice in the business world these days. That is to say, no publicity is better than an infinitesimal chance of some perceived less-than-positive spin on a story or some chance of a crazy, frivolous law suit. 

I've had construction companies decline coverage because of some fear that OSHA might spot some minor infraction in their workplace. I've had some business managers insist on approving any photograph before it is published (which would constitute prior restraint, or censorship, folks). One time, the manager at another national restaurant chain here in Statesboro objected when I took pictures of their establishment when they were performing exterior renovations, in plain public view. He was concerned that a picture would make people think the restaurant was closed. I had to explain that most people driving past would assume that they were indeed closed, but that a picture with a caption would explain they were still open and give a time frame for the completion of the project. It was really a public service to the restaurant, one that answered questions from a public curious about a popular restaurant.

Companies -- even public institutions, in fact -- carefully guard their image and seek to control any information disseminated about them. This is understandable -- to a point. It's the right of a privately owned company to operate in their own interests. However, don't companies that primarily serve the public have an obligation to operate with some amount of transparency?

I've tried to gain access to some companies which are essentially public gathering areas, but I have been banned and threatened for simply wanting to make photographs for stories about things like school supplies and holiday shopping. When I've tried to go through proper corporate avenues to gain permission, I've either been ignored or put off so long that story deadlines have passed. And, ironically, I have received press releases from these very same companies requesting coverage of their presentation ceremonies for charitable contributions.

Granted, it hurts a journalist's argument that they represent public interest when so many are employed by mega media corporations, some of whose business practices appear to run counter to public interest. Irony abounds and it hurts journalists with honest intentions, and it sometimes hinders the flow of information the public needs to know what's going on in their own communities.

Apparently, I am a scary monster behind the camera, but I am most welcomed when I cross the threshold with my wallet opened and my mouth shut.

Most of the time, these restrictions are mostly an annoyance for me. But don't blanket bans on media coverage make you wonder what goes on behind closed doors?

The debate about public vs. private interests will probably always rage on. When and where does one trump the other? How do we maintain a proper balance?

Thoughts?