Condé Nast Pulls Plug on Internship Program

Posted on October 26, 2013 by

The landscape for journalism interns is beginning to drastically change as news came out earlier this week that magazine powerhouse Condé Nast will be ending their internship program in 2014.

The news was first announced in Women’s Wear Daily four months after two former interns sued Condé Nast, claiming that they were paid below minimum wage while working summer internships at W Magazine and The New Yorker.  The case, which is still pending, is one of a handful of similar lawsuits that have been filed by low-paid and unpaid interns in the media field, according to The New York Times.

As a former Condé Nast intern, I’m surprised by the news, but not utterly floored.  When I started as the web intern for Condé Nast Traveler last year, I was the last Master’s level intern in their program.  They had made the decision just over a year ago to no longer accept interns who were pursuing higher education, this being at the time when Hearst Magazines battled a former intern for Harper’s Bazaar in court who claimed that she had worked an unpaid internship that was essentially a full time job.

In the lawsuit she claimed that, “unpaid interns are becoming the modern-day equivalent of entry-level employees, except that employers are not paying them for the many hours they work.”

With my experience as the last graduate level intern at Condé Nast, it seemed to me that some move was eminent, but when I heard that they had decided to pull the plug on the program all together, I was surprised at the magnitude of their decision.  I thought that they would continue to take in undergraduate interns, but figured that they would stick with their decision to pass on master’s students.

In the past, the publications at Condé Nast would ‘employ’ dozens of interns amongst their numerous publications, which include The New Yorker, GQ, Bon Appétit, Vogue and Vanity Fair, among others.  

The unpaid internship has been a contentious issue in the media industry for years as entry-level positions seem to dwindle away and publications take on unpaid interns to fill the roles.  It equates to a whole working class that finds it difficult to advance their careers with a limited amount of entry-level jobs, and with no income to support them while they work for free.

Condé Nast’s decision to completely dismantle their internship program is fully within their rights, however, wouldn’t it be more productive for both the publication and these interns to get paid for their work?  The company, which saw a 14 percent increase in revenue last year to nearly $27.7 million due to ad sales, has the means to pay their interns at least minimum wage.

While it seems that the case is now closed for Condé Nast and their internship program, we wait to see whether other media outlets will follow suit.  This could be the start of a disastrous trend for publications who weigh the benefits of intern work against the potential for labor lawsuits.

Posted in Journalists | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Scientist Called ‘Urban Whore’ For Turning Down Unpaid Blogging Position

Posted on October 25, 2013 by

The unpaid “contributor” position is a growing point of contention within the journalism world.  Many who pitch stories to various websites and blogs with the hopes of building their portfolios are often left with a disheartening response that’s more insulting than appreciated.

“Although we don’t pay contributors, our website reaches ‘X’ amount of viewers…” many response emails start out, but frankly, no one can pay rent with page views.  It becomes even more dumbfounding when editors don’t understand why a writer would want to get paid for their work. 

One editor of a popular science website took it personal when a biologist turned down an unpaid writing position at his website, responding with a viscous attack on the scientist.  The editor at Biology-Online, only identified as “Ofek”, emailed Danielle Lee who is a postdoctoral fellow in zoology at Oklahoma State University to write for the website.  Lee, who is a regular blogger for “The Urban Scientist” on Scientific American inquired about compensation and the time commitment that Ofek was considering. 

She received a response saying that contributors were not compensated for their writing.

In a professional and to-the-point email, Lee responded with the following, “Thank you very much for your reply.  But I will have to decline your offer.  Have a great day.”

The conversation quickly took a nasty turn when Ofek responded by saying, “Because we don’t pay for blog entries?  Are you an urban scientist of an urban whore?”

Lee was taken aback by the response.  She quickly replied by asking whether the editor just called her a whore, but no response came.  Lee decided to post the email exchanges in a blog entry for Scientific American.

“I didn’t want to just rant.  I focused on how to turn this into a learning moment or come up with a solution,” Lee said in an interview with ABC News. 

Lee had written the post the day of her last email exchange with Ofek and posted it to the blog, but by the end of the day it was taken down.  Officials for Scientific American said to ABC News that the post wasn’t a science focused piece and that for legal reasons they couldn’t leave it up.

Lee said during the interview that she was disheartened to hear that her piece was removed from the website because she had worked to focus the entry and had written about personal matters before.

The controversy gained notoriety in the media over the past few weeks with articles published in The Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, Yahoo News, and ABC News.  Officials for Biology-Online announced in a statement that Ofek, a new hire for the publication, had been fired from his position.

Although Lee’s story has made headlines for being one that is noticeably over the top, the issue at heart is one that almost all writers face.  Publications expect writers, both entry-level and veterans, to produce work for either free or little pay with the ‘bonus’ of exposure.  In no other industry are workers exploited to this extreme.

For those veteran writers who have amassed a respectable collection of printed pieces, exposure isn’t what they are looking for.  These writers are looking to get paid for their work to make a living for themselves, and to pay their bills. 

Free work is rarely the same quality as paid work, so these publications are depriving themselves of superior work with the hopes of saving a few dollars.  But in the end, will a website endure the constant competition with other publications when their content is sub-par?

It seems as though they are only shooting themselves in the foot to save a penny.

Posted in Journalists | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Is a Journalism Degree Worth Pursuing?

Posted on September 10, 2013 by

It’s a question that I’ve heard many times.  What are the pro’s for pursuing an advanced degree in journalism compared to toughing it out and hitting the pavement with a notebook and pen in hand and forging your own path?  Well, the answer ultimately depends on what you are hoping to accomplish. 

Each option has its benefits and its shortcomings.  There’s no guarantee that either choice you make will determine the success of your career, but knowing what you’d like to achieve will help you make the final decision.

To be fair, my opinion may be biased as I’m a graduate of the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, but one can only speak from personal experience.  I can tell you that having finished my degree, I would make the same decision again if I were to be spontaneously thrown back in time.  Going back to school opened up a whole new network of colleagues, both students and professors, which I wouldn’t have necessarily met otherwise.  With the help of professors I was able to get in touch with editors at respected publications, and through school I was able to work a handful of internships at ‘big name’ outlets.  For me it was the right choice.

After receiving my Bachelor’s degree in English, I knew that I wanted to start my writing career.  I spent some time trying to develop a professional portfolio of freelance work after building a network of connections with local editors.  After nearly two years, I still found it hard to pay the bills and most entry level positions I applied for still wanted past years experience, something I still don’t understand.  An entry level position should be just that, entry-level, but that’s a topic for another time.

I had started a Master’s program in marketing, a field that I thought would allow me to work my creative muscles, but it wasn’t the perfect fit for me.  After some number crunching to see if I could afford the transition, I decided to try out a master’s program geared towards journalism.  I had the expectation that it would be an opportunity to network and get some good clips in the process, I was right.  What I didn’t expect was the amount of exposure to other journalism platforms that I would get.  Instead of just writing, I learned how to tell stories through photos, radio features, videos, and longer form narrative.  The breadth of experience I received while at school is something that I’m certain I wouldn’t have been able to receive in the same amount of time at an entry level position.

The curriculum is rigorous.  We were told not to work while going to school and I could see why.  We worked regular 16 hour days, seven days a week.  We produced radio features, short documentaries, blog posts, long form features, and photo projects week after week, juggling many stories at the same time. 

I started school with the intention of focusing on my writing career but soon realized that I had a real interest in radio and video work.  This exposure most likely wouldn’t have happened if I had taken a reporting job at a small publication, as I would’ve most likely stuck to writing.  Due to the strenuous hours and the constant feedback from multiple editors (professors) I think that my work became much more professional.  I was working with full-time employed editors from TIME, The New York Times, The New Yorker, etc.  Without school it would’ve taken me years to even get on those editors radar, if ever.

But there are downsides.  The cost to go back to school can be defeating on its own.  With programs offered by respected schools like Columbia and New York University, you could end up paying upwards of $100,000.  Also, as much as advisors tell you that your experience in journalism school equates to years on the job, employers don’t always agree.  Many of them would rather see that you worked for a big name organization getting coffee than producing stories in multiple platforms for a grad-level course.  But you’re not going back to school for them, you’re going back to school for you.

If you view this life decision as personal development, not necessarily professional, you’ll see a tremendous amount of success.  Through school I was able to craft my work and decide which career paths are best for me.  I freelanced, and like I mentioned before, worked internships throughout school to build up my resume.  I would encourage anyone considering the change to ask themselves what they are looking for in their career before making the investment.  For those who are taking reporting jobs to fill your time before you find your true passion, it may not be for you.  School is perfect for those who truly want to become a better, more thorough reporter, writer and storyteller.  

Posted in Journalists | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Politico Owner Buys Capital New York With Plans to Expand

Posted on September 9, 2013 by

It’s been a busy past few months in the journalism industry as a handful of major news outlets have changed hands, closed down, or expanded.  Al Jazeera America launched only a few weeks ago, The Washington Post changed hands, and Patch closed a substantial amount of local publications, but the news keeps coming.  It was announced late last night that Politico owner Robert Allbritton had purchased Capital New York with plans to expand the publication.

Capital founders and Co-editors Tom McGeveran and Josh Benson posted about the sale on Capital’s website less than 24 hours ago that the publication would be changing hands.  In the announcement, it was stated that the intention for the future of the site is to keep it as a “free-standing sibling publication” to the Washington D.C. based Politico.

Although the plan is to keep Capital as a separate entity, there will be some additions to the staff.  Executive editor of Politico, Jim VandeHei will take the position of Capital’s president while Katherine Lehr and Cally Stolbach will become a part of the media outlets business department according to The Atlantic Wire.

Benson and McGeveran’s letter to their readers discusses the future of the publication with the promise to keep everyone updated as the publication grows over the next few months.

The energized response to the acquisition is one of many as the announcement is welcome news in the industry that is often plagued by downsizing.

“Very excited to have the good folks at Capital New York in the fam (sic),” tweeted Dylan Byers, media reporter for Politico. 

While many publications are downsizing or simply closing down, Allbritton plans to expand the site, creating at least two dozen plus jobs in the City. 

 “And by the way, that’s 24+ job openings in New York, journos,” Byers later tweeted.

With the increased funding for Capital from Allbritton, there are plans to completely redesign the site and add additional revenue streams.

“We’ve always believed that journalism needs more than display advertising to support itself,” read the statement.  “With POLITICO, we’ll have the strategic and organizational muscle to tap into other revenue streams.”

Although the exact plans for the site, in regard to the expansion, development of the site, specific revenue streams, etc., have yet to be released, the influx in jobs is welcome news to the industry.

Posted in Journalists | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

AOL to Close 400 Patch Sites

Posted on August 30, 2013 by

It was an ambitious project to begin with, but it seems as though AOL has decided that after years of mediocre success with hyper-local news, that they will begin to shut down many of their Patch sites.  The fateful news came down earlier this month during a meeting with nearly 1,000 Patch employees when AOL Chief Executive Officer Tim Armstrong announced the changes.

The Patch sites, which cover town hall meetings, local business and school board meetings, launched in 2007 with plans to penetrate the hyper-local news business by opening small publications throughout the country.  At the time of the announced closings, Patch operated in 23 states with over 900 sites. 

Armstrong attributed the fast paced growth of the sites as one of the reasons for their inability to succeed.  The over-development of the company wasn’t supported by demand and AOL began to hemorrhage millions of dollars due to the venture.

AOL invested more than $300 million in developing the sites but has been unable to turn the project into a profitable business.  Last year the sites earned just shy of $35 million from advertising revenues, their highest earning year to date, but the cost to maintain the sites ranges from $126 million to $162 million annually.

AOL is in the process of trying to find partner sites for many of the 400 underperforming Patches but will pull the plug if no partners can be found.  AOL will not be wasting much more time with trying to match unsuccessful Patches as many having already been closed.  The remaining 500 Patch sites will continue to operate for the time being and Armstrong didn’t mention whether there were further plans to close the more successful and semi-profitable sites.

While the Patch closing garnered a substantial amount of media attention after the announcement, it was the public firing of an employee during the meeting that seemed to be the headline story for most publications. 

Armstrong fired Creative Director Abel Lenz on the spot for taking photos during the meeting.  After the unexpected termination, business continued as usual as Armstrong addressed the crowd.

Not long after the news of the massive closings, AOL executive Steven Kalin announced his resignation from the company.  Bud Rosenthal will act as the interim chief until a permanent replacement can be found.

This low period for the publications isn’t the first brush with criticism the company has faced.

Since its inception, the company has received a substantial amount of condemnation for their unstable business model.  Articles appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Business Insider and Forbes, which attacked the company for having an unrealistic expectation for their future.

When former Editor-in-Chief Brian Farnham resigned in April 2012, he said “I’ve never worked for a company that has been as scrutinized, criticized, and coal-raked as this one.”  He continued to say, “You’d think we were creating toxic waste, instead of, you know, free useful information.”

Posted in Journalists | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Amazon.com Founder Jeff Bezos Buys Washington Post

Posted on August 8, 2013 by

It was splashed across the (internet) headlines earlier Monday that after decades, the family that has owned and operated the Washington Post had sold the struggling paper.  It came as even more of a shock to some that the man on the receiving end of the deal was internet guru Jeffrey Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com.

Bezos reportedly purchased the print outlet for $250 million from the Graham family, who has owned the paper for the past 80 years.  It’s not the fact that someone invested hundreds of millions of dollars with the intention of making a profit on a struggling paper that’s surprised many, but the fact that Bezos has no experience with traditional print journalism.

Washington Post columnist Michelle Singletary addressed those same concerns from the perspective of an employee affected by the purchase in her Tuesday piece, “The day my company was sold”.  She expressed worry that she may lose her job, that her pension would dry up, or, more notably for the readers that the Washington Post environment would be drastically changed.  Friends tried to calm her nerves by saying, “Bezos is innovative.  Look to him to look for ways to package and market content,” but it did little to quell her anxiety. 

This bubbling unease isn’t just building in the depths of the staff’s stomachs either.  A similar reaction is being experienced by many loyal readers who are wondering whether Bezos will take on this new venture with a determination to manipulate the publication into a money-making, new journalism venture, or if he will let things lie.

It’s not to say that a fresh perspective wouldn’t be appreciated or that new journalism is bad, actually it’s quite the opposite.  The worry is that the publication may try to take on a completely new identity by shedding its former, still much respected skin.

If numbers have anything to say, and they usually do, it’s that many are welcoming the transition as the paper’s shares hit a five-year high of $599.85, according to Reuters.  Publications like Politico and The Atlantic have hope, if not cautious for the new future of the paper.

“Let us hope that this is what the sale signifies: the beginning of a phase in which this Gilded Age’s major beneficiaries re-invest in the infrastructure of our public intelligence,” wrote Atlantic correspondent James Fallows in his piece “Why the Sale of the Washington Post Seems So Significant.”

And Politico ran the headline, “Bezos re-Kindles hope at WaPo.”

Fallows closing remarks are a touching sentiment for the farewell of a fading era in journalism. 

“We hope it marks a beginning,” he writes.  “Because we know it marks an end.”

Posted in Journalists | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Media Angers Audience with Pictures of Trayvon Martin’s Dead Body

Posted on July 12, 2013 by

For the past few weeks, coverage of the George Zimmerman trial has dominated the media, months after the shooting death of 17-year old Trayvon Martin.  After hearing closing arguments today, the all-female jury began deliberations.

While waiting to hear a response from jurors, major news outlets began to cover the back story of the case, addressing crucial details and raising questions about the validity of Zimmerman’s stand your ground defense. 

Zimmerman is accused of profiling and stalking the unarmed teenager, before shooting him dead.  It was in a small Florida community that self-appointed Zimmerman took to the streets to protect his neighborhood from potential criminals.  Zimmerman attests to the fact that he followed Martin, considering the teen up to no good, but claims that the teen attacked him before he fired the fatal shot.

Zimmerman claims that he acted in self defense and is using Florida’s stand your ground to protect him.

With tensions high as jurors deliberate, the nation sits waiting to hear the final outcome.  Last night, a fleeting moment of media coverage ignited angered responses when MSNBC aired the lifeless body of Trayvon Martin.  While striking a cord, the news outlet also stirred up an entirely separate debate; is it necessary to show such graphic images when covering such a story?

The photo that was aired on MSNBC wasn’t the photo that had previously been used in coverage on The Huffington Post of Trayvon’s body covered up with a sheet, but the uncovered, unmasked, bloody image before he was covered.  It’s a shocking photo that is quite personal – his eyes still open and his hands lying beside him.

Gawker quickly published a piece headlined with a dominating photo of Trayvon’s body, with the seeming rationale, according to a Facebook user, “the media is shitty, I’m the media, I’m expected to be shitty.”  The author, Adam Weinstein didn’t quite condemn MSNBC for their decision, but instead decided, ‘if you can’t beat them, join them.’

News outlets have subsequently pounced on MSNBC and Gawker for deciding to publish such personal content, slamming them for their decision to garner page views. For the record, I will not be linking to the Gawker story as they have yet to take down the photo.

Weinstein published comments and letters he’s received since publishing the story with one woman writing, “As a Black woman, I am angry.  livid. distraught,”  she continues to write, “BUT, you should have asked permission from Trayvon’s parents.  They should have had that right.  Trayvon and his parents had no respect/hand in how he was portrayed in the mind of his ignorant murderer.  That decision cost him his life.”

A handful of readers responded on the Gawker story with their irritation that the publication decided to show the image.

“I very much wish I had been given a choice of looking at this picture, instead of having it embedded on the main page,” wrote one reader.

“Nauseating,” wrote another.

News is generally grisly enough without the need of amplifying the gruesomeness of the story.  It makes you wonder what need this fulfills.  Does it help tell the story?  Can’t words do justice?

It’s only been a few hours since the original Gawker story went up and already it has created a firestorm of debate, but this isn’t the first time something like this has angered an audience.  In 2001 many news outlets angered their viewers for showing people jump to their deaths from the World Trade Center attacks.  What the media hasn’t realized yet is that is wasn’t okay with their audiences back then, and it still isn’t okay with them now.

Posted in Journalists | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Journalists Against Journalism; Reporters take issue with government surveillance

Posted on July 5, 2013 by

The Edward Snowden story has made headlines across nearly every news outlet across the globe, but the latest story doesn’t have to do with his asylum or the government’s attempt to prosecute.  Reporters and news organizations have taken this opportunity to speak out about their perspective on investigative journalism, declaring that government surveillance should be off limits.

David Sirota of Salon.com has compiled a list of these reporters who attest to having a moral quandary in regard to investigative news when it comes to our government.  Sirota branded this group of news gatherers as “Journalists Against Journalism,” stating that to these reporters, “the best journalism is not the kind that challenges power or even merely sheds light on the inner workings of government; it is about protecting power and keeping the lights off.”

One group stands out among the rest in this list; The Washington Post.  In an editorial posted earlier this week, the paper seems to question the journalism in the story.  Ironically though, it was their paper that contributed to the development of the story.

It was a couple of weeks ago that the Snowden story first broke.  The Guardian ran the first interview with the former technical contractor for the United States National Security Agency, in which he revealed confidential information about a variety of classified intelligence programs.  With Snowden currently on the run, the U.S. government has spent the past few weeks tracking him down with the hope of extraditing him back to the U.S. to be prosecuted.

Snowden originally approached The Washington Post about state secrets on intelligence gathering before speaking with The Guardian.  The Post ran the story and aided in the development of the vastly expanding story, but now the Post is shaming their own reporters.  Earlier this week the Post published an editorial bashing Snowden and the news outlets that covered his story – aka themselves.  “Plugging the leaks in the Edward Snowden case” highlights what the editorial board at the Post believes to be espionage and not investigative journalism.

The only issue with the Post’s argument that Snowden reportedly stole “many more documents” is that there is no evidence.  The paper continues to say that “it is not clear whether Russia or China has obtained the material, though U.S. officials would have to assume that Mr. Snowden would be obliged to hand over whatever he has to win asylum in Moscow.” 

So my question is, why write about assumptions when you can wait for the facts to come to light before you report?

The editorial team even went so far as to offer advice to Snowden by suggesting that he surrender to U.S. authorities.  My understanding of journalism is that it is the news organizations responsibility to report the facts and nothing more.  I understand that this is in fact an editorial, but given that the Post was one of the first publications to break the story, this sudden anti-whistleblower stance is conflicting with their original efforts to pursue the story.  I just don’t understand their intentions at throwing their own reporters under the bus.  What do they have to gain from this?

The editorial points out that the government’s first priority should be “to prevent Mr. Snowden from leaking information that harms efforts to fight terrorism and conduct legitimate intelligence operations.”  As a leading news organization that played a key role in the dissemination of the story, you might think that they would stand behind their reporters and uphold the work that they originally deemed important enough to splash across their front page.

Posted in Journalists | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

How the Media Failed to Cover the News; The Wendy Davis Story

Posted on June 28, 2013 by

It’s been an emotional week for millions of Americans, legal and undocumented, gay and straight, as the political atmosphere in this country has been forever altered.  Democrats and Republicans came together, for the most part, to change or move in the right direction regarding the wrongs that have prevented many people from living their lives.

On Tuesday, millions of people followed Democratic Senator Wendy Davis’s triumphant filibuster attempt and eventual success at preventing a restrictive abortion bill in Texas that would force hundreds of clinics to close across the state.  The Defense of Marriage Act was voted down and California’s Proposition 8 was left for dead on Wednesday, giving equal rights to LGBT couples across the country and allowing same-sex couples to marry in the state.  On Thursday, the immigration reform bill was passed in Senate, taking one step closer towards allowing millions of undocumented immigrants provisional green cards and a clearer path to citizenship.

With all of this groundbreaking news you might figure that the media would be focusing their attention on coverage as an audience took to the internet to get their facts.  You might also think that all of this groundbreaking news would be the sole focus of most stories on the internet, in magazines and on broadcast, but it was the complete lack of coverage on one dramatic issue that has really grabbed the headlines.

All major news outlets completely failed to cover Wendy Davis’s filibuster attempt, instead deciding to report on a litany of other, less historic stories instead.  Fox, MSNBC and CNN all aired rerun episodes of their anchors talking about issues that were recognizably incomparable, historically speaking.

While commenters veraciously took to Facebook and Twitter to comment and exchange information regarding Davis and the filibuster, news outlets focused their coverage on muffins (that’s right, muffins.)  CNN ran a repeated segment of Piers Morgan, Anderson Cooper and Dr. Drew Pinksy talking about the caloric content of blueberry muffins while Davis waged into her tenth hour of ‘filibusting’.

Fox and MSNBC took another, equally astonishing route playing reruns of Greta Van Susteren and Rachel Maddow, respectively. 

Interested audiences took to social media tweeting up to nearly 6,000 tweets per minute with the hashtag #StandWithWendy just as her filibuster attempt was deemed in violation for speaking off topic twice and having someone help her adjust her back brace.

While many supported Davis on Twitter, there were just as many who criticized the media for failing to report the news.

“Yet another major fail by cable news nets right now,” wrote Keither Olbermann.

Amy Leigh Strickland wrote, “100k people watching Wendy Davis online, but CNN is covering Paula Deen.  This is why the internet is a better news source.”

With all of the criticism it seems as though the news outlets have finally realized their mistake as they flood their sites with backfilled stories in an attempt to now over-cover the event.  Profiles, follow-ups, detailed descriptions and features are pouring in and it seems just a little too late.  That last ditch attempt to cover the now outdated news makes you wonder where they all were when the event was actually going on.

Posted in Journalists | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Chicago Sun Times Lays Off Entire Photo Staff

Posted on June 1, 2013 by

In an ironic and fateful twist, the Chicago Sun-Times laid off its entire photo staff just hours after printing the obituary of famed photojournalist Bob Kotalik who spent his entire career at the paper.

The news first began to circulate on Twitter when reporter Robert Channick tweeted, “Chicago Sun-Times lays off its full photography staff; plans to use freelancers going forward.”

Management at the paper stated that the move was due to an increasing demand for online video.  Roughly 20 full-time staff photographers were let go, but according to Crain’s Chicago Business, the number could be as high at 30 since the publication includes smaller papers like the Chicago Reader.

It was earlier this week that Kotalik passed away in his home in Mesa, Ariz due to Alzheimer’s disease.  Kotalik started his 47-year-long career with the Chicago Sun Times back in 1942 and worked his way up to become the paper’s chief photographer.

The obituary, which ran on Thursday, included a quote from Pulitzer prize-winning Sun-Times photographer John H. White who workerd with Kotalik, just hours before White was let go.

The paper released the following statement after they announced the layoffs:

“The Sun-Times business is changing rapidly and our audiences are consistently seeking more video content with their news.  We have made great progress in meeting this demand and are focused on bolstering our reporting capabilities with video and other multimedia elements.  The Chicago Sun-Times continues to evolve with our digitally savvy customers, and as a result, we have had to restructure the way we manage multimedia, including photography, across the network.”

Readers have taken to discussion forums and social media sites to express their frustration with the layoffs. 

“Did anybody in control there even read the obit of Bob Kotalik??? Sure doesn’t seem like it…” signed disillusioned reader of 60 years on a Chicago Tonight article.

A reader who goes by BobInRogers Park wrote on the same story, “Expecting print-oriented reporters to act as photographers and videographers will be detrimental to the quality of all three aspects of journalism.”

On The Chicago Sun-Time’s Facebook page, one writer commented on over a dozen articles, simply saying, “NO PHOTOGRAPHS ALLOWED.”

The move comes as part of a larger move to downsize according to multiple media outlets, but the focus remains on the photo staff.  The executive director of the Chicago Newspaper Guild, Craig Rosenbaum said in an interview with The New York Times that an unfair labor practice charge would be filed in reaction to the publications announcement.

Over the past few years the publication, which is currently the tenth largest in the country, has seen their paid circulation decrease substantially.  At the end of 2012, they reported a paid circulation of 263,292 compared to 341,448 in 2006, according to The New York Times.

Posted in Journalists | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off