A camera is just that, a camera. It doesnt matter if you have a $10,000 camera setup or a $100 (or less) setup so long as you are a good photographer. Obviously there will be limitations as to what you can do with cheaper equipment but in the end if you do not have the strong base of photographic technique, compositional, and artistic skills your photos are still going to look like crap.
I dont see what the fuss is. Just because people use Holga's does not mean their photos are good. Some may say "oh, thats neat" but a real photograph has something more to it than "oh thats pretty." It has depth to it.
People get worried over the silliest things.
Oh and it's already been mentioned like five times already that the people using the Holgas were Photojournalist to begin with. So why are you so upset? They are still photographers and obviously have the ability otherwise they wouldnt be photojournalist (in most cases).
It is also wise to note the fact that just because reporters are given cameras does not mean that their photos will be of any value. Yeah they will have a photo, but when an 'honest-to-god' photo journalists work is setup next to a simple reporter's photographs the images should tell the truth.
If a newspaper company cant see the difference between a crappy photograph taken by someone with no photographic skill and a photojournalist who has photos with impact, then obviously there is something wrong with the paper.
I would suggest you change employers, because if someone cant see the value of good photography then most likely you are not being paid enough anyway.
