Ah! This is so inspiring. Using technology to bring a new level to communication in mass media. This is just one of the many ways that different media - writing, video, audio, still photography- are converging to produce a total package story. I don't think it's signaling the end of any of these forms, but rather allowing journalists to choose the best method for delivering a story, using more mediums if necessary. It's so cool!
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
onBeing is Back
The Washington Post started a segment last year called onBeing. The video project was started by Jennifer Crandall with "the simple notion that we should get to know one another better", as it says on the site. Each video is a short interview with a person (sometimes two) about their lives. It's on simple white background with quick straight cut editing and no embellishments such as music or ambient sound.
What I really like about the series is that it almost feels like a conversation with that person. There is an instant intimacy in the pieces. Crandall gets the subjects to open up and the stories just flow. I also love that the editing gets straight to the point without tedious introductions. The combination of anecdotes, recollections, and opinions make the interviews feel very similar to how people interact in real life. I think it breaks out of the normal interview box that journalists get stuck in sometimes.
The project has been criticized as being too simplistic, so much that it loses journalistic merit. It's just people talking about their lives, sometimes just complaining or rambling, they say. But that's what features are: a look at someone's life. Granted, I don't like all the interviews. I think some of them prattle about nothing and shouldn't have been posted. But for the most part they are slices of life taken from a wide variety of people. The simplicity is a good thing. It lets you focus on the person's expressions, gestures, faces, voice, and story. My only major criticism of the series is that different styles of fonts are used in each piece and often it comes off as cheesy and unprofessional. And the new site is a bit awkward to navigate through.
My favorite video is about Jessica Tibbets, a girl who fel in love with the Arabic languge and through it learned Yemeni sign language. I appreciate her passion and fascination with the relationships of different languages to each other. The piece makes me smile and I feel a common understanding with her. A good feature does that: it connects humanity. I encourage you to go watch the videos.
What I really like about the series is that it almost feels like a conversation with that person. There is an instant intimacy in the pieces. Crandall gets the subjects to open up and the stories just flow. I also love that the editing gets straight to the point without tedious introductions. The combination of anecdotes, recollections, and opinions make the interviews feel very similar to how people interact in real life. I think it breaks out of the normal interview box that journalists get stuck in sometimes.
The project has been criticized as being too simplistic, so much that it loses journalistic merit. It's just people talking about their lives, sometimes just complaining or rambling, they say. But that's what features are: a look at someone's life. Granted, I don't like all the interviews. I think some of them prattle about nothing and shouldn't have been posted. But for the most part they are slices of life taken from a wide variety of people. The simplicity is a good thing. It lets you focus on the person's expressions, gestures, faces, voice, and story. My only major criticism of the series is that different styles of fonts are used in each piece and often it comes off as cheesy and unprofessional. And the new site is a bit awkward to navigate through.
My favorite video is about Jessica Tibbets, a girl who fel in love with the Arabic languge and through it learned Yemeni sign language. I appreciate her passion and fascination with the relationships of different languages to each other. The piece makes me smile and I feel a common understanding with her. A good feature does that: it connects humanity. I encourage you to go watch the videos.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Why I Didn't Like Dave Labelle's Speech
I know it's a sin in the world of photojournalism, but I was very disappointed with Dave LaBelle's speech last Wednesday. I came to hear about the business of photojournalism. I came to hear how I could use my talents to create a living for myself. I came for advice on how to be a better photographer. Instead I was bombarded by a presentation about the homeless in Ventura, California and why I must give my life to help those in need.
The show started off with several statistics about how many people in America are homeless and how the unemployment percentage is creeping back to its high in the Great Depression. Then LaBelle segued into a recent project he started to at the Ventura County Star to document homeless people called Hard Times. He said he noticed that every pet of the week featured in the paper was always adopted and figured a similar effect could be made to help homeless in the area. He said he felt it was his duty as a journalist to use his talent to help other people. He said he didn't try to make his photographs great, that they were meant to be about the person, not him. I'm assuming what he meant was that by creating a stunning photograph the focus would have been more on the photographer than the subject.
Then he went on to say how he was disgusted by the people who judged these homeless and felt no pity for them. He said to us if anybody had never made a bad choice to cast the first stone. He told us that nobody plans to be homeless, and any of us could end up in the same situation. After that he remembered what the topic of the speech was supposed to be- the business of photography - and opened the floor up for questions. There were only a few. He ended the meeting with the advice to save 10% of everything we made for financial security, and then to give away 10% to those in need so we might foster a world where everyone cares for each other. He also mentioned that he had seen many people die and those who were selfless went much more peacefully than those who were selfish.
At the end of it, I couldn't hep but feel angry. I had come to get some knowledge from a professional about how to better myself and earn money for my work. Instead I was hit over the head with this project about people whose bad choices led to their demise, and then I was told by judging them for their actions that I was immoral. I was told that I was no different from the alcoholic who couldn't get a job or the woman who lost her car after lending it to someone who got it towed. I was told that my previous bad choices prevented me from morally judging any of them. I was told unless I was willing to give away my money to someone in need that I would die unhappy. And he got a standing ovation.
Don't get me wrong, I respect a lot of the work LaBelle has done. His books The Great Picture Hunt 1 and 2 are great guides to finding features and are simple enough for amateurs to benefit from. But I completely disagree with his philosophy and ethics. His notion that the homeless shouldn't be judged is unjust. True, not every person living on the streets deserves to be there. Life brings about unexpected change or crisis that lands people in tough situations. But to hold up the drug addict and the victim of a natural disaster as equal is evil. The drug addict inflicts his own suffering; it is earned. The disaster victim did not earn his misfortune. If LaBelle had focused on those who were victims of uncontrollable circumstances, then the series would be justifiable. Then it would be about people who had hit hard times by no fault of their own and were soliciting voluntary funds from readers. But most of the subjects in the series brought about their situation on their own, sometimes by years of bad choices. To include them with the innocents is unfair.
I'm so tired of seeing these depressing features on people who dig their own holes and suffer because of it. I'm so tired of seeing the story about the single mom who was habitually involved with the wrong man, or the pregnant teenager, or the drug addict, or any of the miserable people trying to get back to zero. I want to see something uplifting. Where are the photographs of the creators, the inventors, the people who live life to the fullest and make no compromises on their happiness? Even today's "inspirational" stories are still ones that feature someone sacrificing their dreams and life to another. Journalism's stuck in such a rut of documenting suffering and sacrifice that it's almost omitted all the other parts of life. So that's all we end up looking for in stories and whoever finds the saddest situations wins the Pulitzer. And I'm just sick of it.
I wish LaBelle had focused on some of the features from his book and how he went about finding them. I wish he would have inspired me to be a better photographer rather than condemn me for valuing myself and my life. I'm finding that the world of journalism has many people who's work I can look up to and whose technical advice I can value, but very few whom I can admire for their ethics.
The show started off with several statistics about how many people in America are homeless and how the unemployment percentage is creeping back to its high in the Great Depression. Then LaBelle segued into a recent project he started to at the Ventura County Star to document homeless people called Hard Times. He said he noticed that every pet of the week featured in the paper was always adopted and figured a similar effect could be made to help homeless in the area. He said he felt it was his duty as a journalist to use his talent to help other people. He said he didn't try to make his photographs great, that they were meant to be about the person, not him. I'm assuming what he meant was that by creating a stunning photograph the focus would have been more on the photographer than the subject.
Then he went on to say how he was disgusted by the people who judged these homeless and felt no pity for them. He said to us if anybody had never made a bad choice to cast the first stone. He told us that nobody plans to be homeless, and any of us could end up in the same situation. After that he remembered what the topic of the speech was supposed to be- the business of photography - and opened the floor up for questions. There were only a few. He ended the meeting with the advice to save 10% of everything we made for financial security, and then to give away 10% to those in need so we might foster a world where everyone cares for each other. He also mentioned that he had seen many people die and those who were selfless went much more peacefully than those who were selfish.
At the end of it, I couldn't hep but feel angry. I had come to get some knowledge from a professional about how to better myself and earn money for my work. Instead I was hit over the head with this project about people whose bad choices led to their demise, and then I was told by judging them for their actions that I was immoral. I was told that I was no different from the alcoholic who couldn't get a job or the woman who lost her car after lending it to someone who got it towed. I was told that my previous bad choices prevented me from morally judging any of them. I was told unless I was willing to give away my money to someone in need that I would die unhappy. And he got a standing ovation.
Don't get me wrong, I respect a lot of the work LaBelle has done. His books The Great Picture Hunt 1 and 2 are great guides to finding features and are simple enough for amateurs to benefit from. But I completely disagree with his philosophy and ethics. His notion that the homeless shouldn't be judged is unjust. True, not every person living on the streets deserves to be there. Life brings about unexpected change or crisis that lands people in tough situations. But to hold up the drug addict and the victim of a natural disaster as equal is evil. The drug addict inflicts his own suffering; it is earned. The disaster victim did not earn his misfortune. If LaBelle had focused on those who were victims of uncontrollable circumstances, then the series would be justifiable. Then it would be about people who had hit hard times by no fault of their own and were soliciting voluntary funds from readers. But most of the subjects in the series brought about their situation on their own, sometimes by years of bad choices. To include them with the innocents is unfair.
I'm so tired of seeing these depressing features on people who dig their own holes and suffer because of it. I'm so tired of seeing the story about the single mom who was habitually involved with the wrong man, or the pregnant teenager, or the drug addict, or any of the miserable people trying to get back to zero. I want to see something uplifting. Where are the photographs of the creators, the inventors, the people who live life to the fullest and make no compromises on their happiness? Even today's "inspirational" stories are still ones that feature someone sacrificing their dreams and life to another. Journalism's stuck in such a rut of documenting suffering and sacrifice that it's almost omitted all the other parts of life. So that's all we end up looking for in stories and whoever finds the saddest situations wins the Pulitzer. And I'm just sick of it.
I wish LaBelle had focused on some of the features from his book and how he went about finding them. I wish he would have inspired me to be a better photographer rather than condemn me for valuing myself and my life. I'm finding that the world of journalism has many people who's work I can look up to and whose technical advice I can value, but very few whom I can admire for their ethics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
