That edict drew lots of criticism here on Gannett Blog, plus a clarification from the newspaper division's editorial chief that walked back some of the policy.
But today, in a break from that policy, USA Today itself included a generous helping of good Associated Press photos in this slide show. I counted 10 AP photos out of the 50 published.
When local favorite Gabby Douglas won gold, the Des Moines Register ran an AP photo on the front page, and a Getty photo on page 1 of sports.
ReplyDeleteGod, Jim, you have this completely wrong. While the word "mandate" was used in the memo, it was also clear that the mandate was to use Press wire photos as much as possible, NOT exclusively.
ReplyDeleteTo see AP photos in the photo gallery is not in any way a major break in policy, as you state so breathlessly and, frankly, desperately.
The are a lot of real stories in Gannett. This photo gallery is not one of them.
Pathetic.
When will editors learn that our jobs are to deliver the best possible product for the readers -- and stupid rules that stand in the way of that goal both weaken the product and represent a disservice to our readers.
ReplyDeleteThe Gannett photographers are doing a pretty good job with their limited resources, but AP and Getty are absolutely smoking them for overall coverage. USAT and other Gannett properties can't hope to present full coverage of the Olympics by relying on just Gannett sports photos.
ReplyDeleteIf you look around the web you will see that the super team of US Presswire is being out done by AP and Getty
ReplyDelete9:07 Here's what the original memo on the policy said:
ReplyDelete"The USA TODAY Sports Media Group will provide comprehensive photographic coverage of the 2012 London Olympics, from the Opening Ceremonies to the Closing Ceremonies. Gannett properties are mandated to use this imagery, which we believe to be superior to that of any other provider, as their primary source of coverage."
There was not much gray area at all in the original memo's "mandate" from Gerry Ahern. It was to use the Presswire photos and not other wire services.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Kate Marymont had to step in later that day - and again last week to re-emphasize the point - and say that while using Presswire is strongly encouraged, all papers are expected to use the best available images for their publications, was very telling.
It's absolutely worth pointing out that the USA Today itself used a good amount of AP photos in its slideshow. This whole episode shows that Ahern is not nearly as powerful as he thinks he is and likes to pretend he is.
Time passes,new Gannett management management arrives, and the Blog becomes less and less significant. The Blog has little knowledge or understanding of Gannett's current manner. Gannett management has less and less knowledge and interest in past employees' "perspective."
ReplyDeleteKey words:
ReplyDelete".... as their primary source of coverage."
Can't read that as EXCLUSIVE
This is why Reuters:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.reuters.com/photographers-blog/2012/07/04/robo-cams-go-for-olympic-gold/
and AP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAIgiOORxLY&feature=youtu.be
are kicking butt.
They've been covering the Olympicas for decades, so they have something USPW (specifically) and Gannett (in general) don't have in spades: institutional knowledge.
I think most people read the word "mandate" as an absolute, as in "You WILL". A command. Not "You SHOULD".
ReplyDeleteIf the powers-that-be wanted their minions to use the best photo available, while giving first-choice to Presswire, then they should have said "Strongly prefer", not "mandate". Poor use of the language by people who should know better.
People who are supposed to be equipped with above-average proficiency in the English language think the word "primary" means "exclusive"?
ReplyDeleteSorry, doesn't pass the smell test. Somebody was just looking to manufacture a phony controversy.
And no, the fact a follow-up memo had to be issued doesn't mean the supposed misunderstanding was ever reasonable.
Hello 3:19 p.m., Your world-weary literary style, notwithstanding, Jim has plenty of contacts within Gannett and plenty of current employees do contribute to the blog. Jim has a pretty good handle on what's happening in our world.
ReplyDeleteNew management isnt interested in institutional knowledge. Thats why were selling so many ads durung the Olympics and in general. Why new heroes like heather frank and crew fail at verticals and dont know Newsgate, and why wet behind the ears geniusues like Rudd Davis fail. beusse sure knows what he is doing, too.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.uspresswire.com/sets/134470
ReplyDeleteDon't see a photo of Serena doing her infamous celebratory "Crip Walk" or a photo of the American flag being scooped up after falling during the playing of the National Anthem as she was on the medal stand.
Two assigned photogs missed BOTH those moments?
But I thought USPW coverage would be "superior", har har.
5:39, there shouldn't have been ANY memo telling the papers what photos they should use.
ReplyDeleteFor years, Gannett has spouted off nonsense about letting local papers make their editorial decisions. Even though we know that's BS with all the initiatives they force-fed on everyone.
Yet, here's another case when Gannett management proves itself to be hypocrites. If they want their editors to choose photos, then let them choose the best photo, regardless of the source. If they want to choose the photos for them, then have one editor pick the photo for every paper.
1:20 forget the anger for a moment. Gannett purchased a company that provides sports photos from around the world. Why wouldn't we use those photos exclusively?
DeleteThe Olympic coverage at my paper and USAT has been great. I see no difference from previous Olympics. Not sure what some folks are gripping about.munless they are upset that they didn't get to go to London.
ReplyDeleteHey 1:20 p.m.
ReplyDeleteIn the era of the new Gannett regional sweatshops, be careful what you wish for.
1:20 PM: Oh, grow up.
ReplyDelete8:11 - That's all well and good if the Gannett photo people are at every single Olympic event and shooting every single competitor.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the photo you need is from an event and/or an athlete that is not shot by the Gannett photo people?
Should you shrug your shoulders, say "Oh well" and use the Gannett stuff? Or should you use the absolute best photos available to you, regardless of the source, to give your readers the best product you possibly can?
I love it. SMG sends out a "mandate" that Presswire photos should be used and then when AP and other sources smoke SMG's own guys, they back-off and pretend they didn't mean exclusive. C'mon guys...that's weak. Make up your minds.
ReplyDelete2:04 you cvan what if this thing to death. Of course you could use said photo if that happens. Not sure what that scenario would like like but sure it could happen. We are talking about the other 99.9% of the time.
ReplyDelete8:11, this is 1:20. 2:04 nailed it exactly. It's proof of a lack of foresight by the Gannett corporate morons that the memo went out in the first place. They should have known that Presswire wasn't going to be able to do the job for each and every paper, and to give their papers the flexibiity to make those decisions on their own.
ReplyDeleteInstead, the papers got nothing except another poorly thought-out mandate.
Primary ain't exclusive. Do we need to administer 5th-grade vocabulary drills to our precious wordsmiths? Meanwhile, this post shamelessly repeats the Big Lie.
ReplyDelete7:34 Anyone who's been around Gannett for a while knows it would take a very, very courageous editor to interpret "mandate" and "primary" as anything but exclusive.
ReplyDeleteIf the Sports Media photos are superior, editors will recognize that and act accordingly. Ahern's memo was overly heavy-handed and confusing. Otherwise, Marymont wouldn't have had to weigh in.
Corporate doesn't mandate anything, but if you have extra cash to utilize other resources, we can look at the revenue we're requiring from your site.
ReplyDeleteDid anybody's allotment to GIADC go DOWN when their ad counts sloughed off? No? How odd.
8:59 AM: Even assuming that is true, your post still flatly and mendaciously says it was exclusive.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, for the reasons already discussed here, an inability to read plain English, to say nothing of a propensity for phony controversies, don't bode well for anybody.
1:55 "Mendaciously"? "Propensity"? Those are some high-dollar words.
ReplyDeleteHad a publisher once who bitched out the sports editor for using 'plethora' in a lede. And then he proceeded to use 'plethora' in every Chamber speech he gave thereafter.
ReplyDelete(As you can guess, plethora showed up in about 15 stories in the week following the tirade.)
You may sound too educated or too stupid for specific members of your audience, but if you deliberately use the language to obfuscate your message, you're not communicating.
You're trying to drown the recipient in crap.
Corporate doesn't mandate anything, 11:20? What planet do you live on?
ReplyDeleteAsk anyone who had to obey any of corporate's useless initiatives.
missed the sarcasm in 11:20's post. Should have thrown a local, local, local five graphs purpose wall in there for you.
ReplyDelete