Here is a good reason not to shoot a Canon anything

I'm sorry. They can pretend all they want, but covering a football game is not journalism anymore than the latest long tele snap of star of the week A is. The only journalism in pro sports is the box scores. Sports photographers are just, if more respected, paparazzi.

You want the _privilage_ of being allowed in? You play by thier rules. Don't want to? Stand outside on the sidewalk and take your pictures.

William
 
ywenz said:
BTW, these sports photogs are not journalists in the normal sense.. Do not confuse sport "games" coverage with news coverage.
Click to expand...
What is the normal sense, then? Is a guy who works for the NY Times, employed as a photojournalist and whose job it is to be taking pictures of famous politicians one day and the NY Giants the next, not a photojournalist?
 
erikhaugsby said:
What is the normal sense, then? Is a guy who works for the NY Times, employed as a photojournalist and whose job it is to be taking pictures of famous politicians one day and the NY Giants the next, not a photojournalist?
Click to expand...

The sports photographers are akin to a photographer at a hollywood red carpet event or a hired photog at someone's bar mitzvah. The distinction with sports photographers is that the images they produce have much broader appeal.

What should be considered real news? I can't really define that, heck no one can define it.. Apply the majority wins rule here. We already have a fairly good grasp of what it is and NOT judging by all the discussions of how the 24hrs news networks are not covering "real" news. If CNN or fill in the _____ (your fav news network) covered mostly stories from the sports world, would you regard that network as a news network?

There is a reason why we have terms like: news, entertainment news, sports news...
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what these new vests/shirts look like...but it's only a small step from the hi-vis clothing we have to wear when working with the emergency services, industrial estates, secure events, roadside, accident coverage etc. Most have various company names emblazened across them.
While safety is always quoted, you tend to know in many cases you're just helping tick the boxes on someone's health and safety form rather than meeting a truly essential need (except when working roadside).

Then there's overalls, lab coats, coveralls etc which all have to be worn when working at respective industrial plants...usually with a brand/company name...
...and so on.

From an advertising point of view...well we all at times wear baseball caps with logos, sports jackets, T and Polo shirts with logos, use prominently named camera straps etc...the difference here is that the name is being dictated rather than chosen from our favourites.

Independent media? Well most organisations these days are involved with (or desperate for) corporate sponsorship - in TV as well as print. Even the state funded ones have commercial deals going on in the background. And this influence is not always easy to detect - but it is there. By the bucketload.
 
ywenz said:
There is a reason why we have terms like: news, entertainment news, sports news...
Click to expand...

There is a reason we have laws, the Bill of Rights, and courts and judges to uphold them. Because all people and all companies act with self-interest that is not for the public good, harmful to the rights of others, or just plain illegal. Just because everyone is a crook doesn't mean you stop fighting crime! I can't believe how cynical some of you guys are.

/T
 
"From an advertising point of view...well we all at times wear baseball caps with logos, sports jackets, T and Polo shirts with logos, use prominently named camera straps etc...the difference here is that the name is being dictated rather than chosen from our favourites."

Duh...yeah...that's just the point.
 
This wouldn't keep me from using Canon products (there are other things that do) but participating in this scheme does not reflect well on Canon.

The advertising world is in turmoil and a lot of new ideas are being field-tested. It's actually exciting to see the creative approaches throughtout different media (tv, print, radio, direct mail) but I'm afraid many of the new practices are either highly deceptive or ethically questionable.

The root of the advertising problem is the perceived (whether accurate or not) ineffectiveness of the old model, which was based on a somewhat distinct separation of advertising from content. The move is to "non-disruptive" advertising models (examples of which include some of the Apprentice TV and Top Chef reality programs) that merge editorial and advertising seamlessly to address the shortcomings of the old model. Now the ads are unavoidable (no more fast-forwarding past the ads or doing something else during commercial breaks in the case of TV) and carry more weight as the audience gets to see the products used by a, supposedly impartial, third party. I find these "non-disruptive" ads highly questionable and choose not to allow them in a magazine my wife and I publish.

But the NFL/Canon thing is an even worse, more pernicious example of the new advertising landscape; it's simply outrageous. It's not only about displaying the advertiser's logo but it's specifically designed to filter reality and manipulate the audience's perception of an scene. The intent here is to portrait all photographers as using, and endorsing, Canon products. It makes it look unanimous, Canon is preferred by 100% of professional photographers.

The NFL and Canon are not breaking new ground here. The American Motorcyclist Association tried the same thing last year when they wanted to sell advertising space on the number plates of racing motorcycles. By this scheme, Brand A could buy that ad space and all racing motorcycles (even competing brands) would have to display Brand A's logo (eg, Honda motorcycles would have to display, on their racing bikes, Suzuki's logo), thus guaranteeing that Brand A's logo would cross the finish line FIRST even when the competing brand's motorcycle won the race.

It's a scary new world, a little reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984.
 
I guess I don't think of it as cynicism so much as that's just how the game is played. "Sure the game is rigged, but it's the only game in town." And you can not win if you don't play.

One time I know of, a news photog was sent to cover a sports event because all the sports photogs were busy. His news perspective was very different & we ended up with an iconic shot of Babe Ruth from behind the last time he was in Yankee Stadium for his jersey to be retired. None of the sports shooters got it because their world is simply different from that of news photographers. I am not aware of any case where the reverse was true.

William
 
For those of you who receive CNN International's "International Correspondents" program, next time please look at one of the images on their set backdrop of a photographer in the field. You can clearly see that the photographer is using a Nikon camera.

How did CNN decide to choose this image? Is there any possibility it was influenced by Nikon? The NFL has made known that their connection with Canon. Is there any kind of deal between CNN and Nikon?

Is this more or less serious than the NFL's vests deal? In which organization is journalistic independence more important? Should we all stop using Nikon gear as well?
 
Tuolumne said:
"From an advertising point of view...well we all at times wear baseball caps with logos, sports jackets, T and Polo shirts with logos, use prominently named camera straps etc...the difference here is that the name is being dictated rather than chosen from our favourites."

Duh...yeah...that's just the point.
Click to expand...

:)
And my point is that in a media environment where news/doco crews are already forced for a variety of reasons into wearing particular clothing - and have been for years...combined with a precedent whereby we already cover ourselves with advertising without much forethought - and have for decades...it's too late to complain when someone combines the two.

If we in the media had spent years campaigning against sponsorship, refusing to wear uniform items when instructed and society had fought for advertisers to pay us to wear branded baseball caps etc (instead of the other way around) then we would be in a better position to take a stand now.

Instead, we have embraced it in our professional and personal lives and I find it remarkable that people are complaining...especially when most of them use Canon cameras anyway, chances are they'd be sporting big and obvious Canon branded lenses and camera straps, be talking up their big Canon branded cameras and lenses to anyone who would listen and nobody watching the game even really cares. :)
 
Tuolumne said:
There is a reason we have laws, the Bill of Rights, and courts and judges to uphold them. Because all people and all companies act with self-interest that is not for the public good, harmful to the rights of others, or just plain illegal. Just because everyone is a crook doesn't mean you stop fighting crime! I can't believe how cynical some of you guys are.

/T
Click to expand...

Your intent is true but your execution is one of an extreme alarmist. This NFL-Canon thing is contained strictly in the private domain. Those photographers DO NOT have a right to photograph an NFL event, it is a PRIVILEGE (a profitable one too for them). This NFL/Canon thing reminds me of people complaining of how Bose uses custom wire connectors on their speakers and thus force their customers to purchase pricey proprietary connectors. It's strictly a business to consumer PR issue, it has nothing to do with law and rights..

Tuolumne said:
Because all people and all companies act with self-interest that is not for the public good, harmful to the rights of others
Click to expand...

Are you personally harmed by these vests with the Canon logo? If so I'm very curious to hear how you are being harmed!
 
Last edited:
DavidH,
Since I am not a sports watcher and, indeed, do not even open the sports pages of the newspaper, I hadn't realized how far things had sunk. I guess we are already at the bottom of the slippery slope. Apparently I am more naive than you guys are cynical. However, there is still a difference between my displaying a logo on an item I have bought vs. being told I have to wear that logo, especially if I am a member of the media (I won't say journalist.) It subverts freedom of the press. It doesn't matter if every photographer shoots Canon and displays that logo on their cameras and lenses. At least then the photographer, or the person who provided the camera, bought it as a tool to use. The logo goes with the product in taht case. On the other hand, if Canon gave a photojournalist a camera and told him he had to use it in public as a condition of the gift, that would be a different matter. Why wouldn't we just end up where the camera company can tell photojournalists not to post anything negative about them in a blog, as a condition of NFL entry? Would that be Ok? Looks like we aren't too far from that. And, of course, Amazon did just buy dpreview, which is probably a step in that direction.

/T
 
nksyoon said:
For those of you who receive CNN International's "International Correspondents" program, next time please look at one of the images on their set backdrop of a photographer in the field. You can clearly see that the photographer is using a Nikon camera.

How did CNN decide to choose this image? Is there any possibility it was influenced by Nikon? The NFL has made known that their connection with Canon. Is there any kind of deal between CNN and Nikon?

Is this more or less serious than the NFL's vests deal? In which organization is journalistic independence more important? Should we all stop using Nikon gear as well?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the "International Correspondents" backdrop but that sounds like an entirely different thing. Showing someone using a product is very different from forcing someone to endorse (and making it look like they are endorsing) something that they might not or would never use. That's the difference.

BTW, CNN has little if any journalism credibility left. It's more like Fox version 2 nowadays.
 
ywenz said:
Your intent is true but your execution is one of an extreme alarmist. This NFL-Canon thing is contained strictly in the private domain. Those photographers DO NOT have a right to photograph an NFL event, it is a PRIVILEGE (a profitable one too for them). This NFL/Canon thing reminds me of people complaining of how Bose uses custom wire connectors on their speakers and thus force their customers to purchase pricey proprietary connectors. It's strictly a business to consumer PR issue, it has nothing to do with law and rights..



Are you personally harmed by these vests with the Canon logo? If so I'm very curious to hear how you are being harmed!
Click to expand...

Subversion of a free press hurts everyone. As I read the other posts, I see it has already happened in sports photography. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.

/T
 
The Best Free Press Money Can Buy

The Best Free Press Money Can Buy

So, let's see if I got this right:

1) In the States, the airwaves are considered to be owned by the 'public'
2) The governmental agency chartered with protecting the interests of the public airwaves is the FCC
3) The administrators of the FCC come from, by and large, commercial media, to which they will return when their term of service is over
4) The 'press' is considered 'free' in the States, 'protected' by constitutional mandate
5) Sports leagues are corporate owned businesses
6) Sports teams are corporate owned businesses
7) These in turn contract commercial broadcast services to the same corporate media interests which are also protected as 'free press'
8) These same commercial media conglomerates broadcast 'news' under the guise of 'journalism', maintaining a facade of objectivity and concoct the notion that there is a 'wall of seperation' between the 'journalistic' and 'business' interests of the media conglomerate
9) Hard news generates much advertising revenue, along with sports, but in no way affects journalistic decision-making
10) Federal campaign dollars, collected from the American taxpayer, are channeled through election campaign organizations to, among other interests, multinational media conglomerates who then create and run advertisements for these candidates
11) These same media conglomerates also broadcast 'hard news' stories on these same candidates, but are in no way affected objectively by the campaign advertisement revenue. See #9.
12) There is a tooth fairy.

We have the best free press that money can buy. Although it still beats a state-run media.
 
Last edited:
ywenz said:
snip...
If anyone wants stop wasting his time and get the perspective from people who actually work out there and not a bunch of wanna be idealists like us, read the response to this new vest here:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=25683

This guy says it like it is:

"The (press) credentials are hard enough to get, and truth be told, the (NFL team) owners could slap $5,000 price tags on them and be sold out in most markets in 20 minutes or less. We are walking in someone else's home and making our bread off of their product."
Click to expand...


Yeah stop having opinions guys. Geeze let the professionals handle it. Average citizens are always throwing wanna be idealism around when we have professional journalists, sports photographers, and politicians etc to make all the hard decisions. If you hurry you may be able to catch greatest football bloopers 37 on espn2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom