From Full-Time to Freelance: Saying Goodbye to the American Photojournalist

It’s somewhat ironic that as cameras become more ubiquitous within our society, the role of the photojournalist is becoming more rare throughout newsrooms every year.

On May 30th the Chicago Sun-Times laid off their entire photography staff, including distinguished photographer and Pulitzer Prize winner, John H. White. Yes, a Pulitzer Prize winner laid off. That’s like you being recognized nationally within your industry as ‘Employee of the Year,’ and being let go the following year. Chances are you’d be stunned. So too were the photography staff at the Sun-Times when they were given their pink-slips less then three weeks ago.

John H. White had been with the Sun-Times for more then 40 years before he was relieved of his duty last month. Neither his tenure nor his work was enough to save his job, and his firing — along with that of the entire photo department — is an ominous sign for photojournalists across America.

The rise of iPhones and DSLR cameras have given way to the perception that photojournalists aren’t all that important and that anyone can do it. Add in all the tools you can use in any standard Photoshop Suite and all the sudden you have a belief that photography is rather simple. This belief has sadly and seemingly seeped into the newsroom culture where more and more photojournalists are having to resort to freelance type work.

I think of photography much in the same way I do poetry. Both are easy to dabble in, but hard to truly master. There’s a certain nuance that a photojournalist possess about their craft that can really only be developed through time, skill and the capturing of countless photos. Let us hope that newsrooms across this country come to their senses and once again see the importance of photography as the lens through which we see the world. For the actual article and a collage of John H. White’s photography of 1970s Chicago, click here.

  

A Little Girl, A Bowl of Cheerios, and A Whole Lot of Hate

It’s somewhat ironic that a 30 second Cheerios commercial could show just how far America has to go when it comes to race and media.

The Cheerios commercial that has ignited a racist backlash is rather simple in its premise. A young girl – who happens to be biracial – asks her mother if Cheerios are good for your heart. Her mother responds that they are indeed healthy for your heart. The commercial then cuts to her sleeping father on the couch who awakens to see an avalanche of Cheerios on his chest. Here’s how it all plays out:

As you can see, the mother is white and the father is black. More than a few people apparently couldn’t stand to see an interracial couple being featured in a commercial in 2013 America. What followed were some pretty nasty and hateful comments left on the commercial’s Youtube page. The vitriol was so bad that General Mills (the brand that makes Cheerios) disabled comments on the page.

Now what does this commercial say about race relations in 2013 America? That there is still much work to be done. Many people want to believe that race is not as big of an issue as it was say in the 50s and 60s, however I tend to believe that race isn’t as public a topic as it used to be.

What these hateful comments and this backlash shows is that unfortunately there are still many who harbor racist views of not just blacks, but a multitude of people within our society. This was true in the 60s as well. The key difference? Today, people (by and large) aren’t that stupid to express their racist attitudes in public. It’s a lot easier to spew hatred anomalously via the the black box that is the internet. And these racist comments aren’t limited to commercials either. This has been a problem in the gaming community for years and the issue was addressed at this year’s SXSW festival.

Ultimately, despite the racist attitudes of many, it’s worth noting that there were a number of people who supported the Cheerios commercial for its diversity. At a time when American families are integrating more than ever, this commercial is a reflection of the changing makeup of society, if not changing thoughts. Perhaps Camille Gibson, who is the vice president of marketing for Cheerios, said it best when she stated, “We felt like we were reflecting the American family.”

Filmmakers of Color Speak at Tribecca Film Festival

Last month the Tribecca Film Festival hosted a panel of filmmakers of color called “Look Who’s Talking.” The panel consisted of Nelson George, Tambay Obenson, Frida Torresblanco, and Terrence Nance. It was moderated by Beth Jansen. The members speak on diversity in film, opportunities for people of color within the industry and their own experiences in making and distributing their work.

42: Right Movie, Wrong Perspective

There are some advantages in life when it comes to procrastination. One of those advantages extends to seeing movies long after they’ve been released. Seeing a movie in theaters six weeks after it opened guarantees you two things: 1) there’s a good chance there won’t be many people in the theater 2) you have about a 95% chance of getting a good seat.

So after taking my time seeing the movie “42” I finally watched it a week ago, and while there were certainly enjoyable parts of the film, it left me wanting more. It’s like going to a restaurant and only having money to buy a couple of appetizers, but you really wanted the steak entree. At the end of your meal, you may be full, but not necessarily satisfied. I felt the same way towards “42.” Good attempt, but it wasn’t the entree I was hoping for.

“42” is the story of major league baseball’s first black player, Jackie Robinson. Robinson is widely recognized around this time of year for the hell he had to put up with for integrating America’s pastime. One can’t even begin to imagine the immense pressure that was on Jackie’s shoulders. He wasn’t just representing himself out there, he was representing a race of people for better or worse, and if he failed, the reverberations would be felt far beyond the field.

When “42” starts we see Branch Rickey — the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers — sitting in his office with his aides at his side. It is here we see Branch Rickey speak on the possibility of bringing in a black ballplayer. This is significant that the movie begins with Branch Rickey and not Jackie. Though the story may be Jackie’s, we see it through the prism of Branch Rickey’s eyes.

Later in that opening scene, while trying to determine which black ballplayer currently playing in the Negro Leagues they will call up, they come to Robinson’s name. One of Branch’s aides brings up the fact that Robinson was court-martialed for refusing to sit at the back of the bus. Instead of depicting that scene, Director Brian Helgeland instead shows Rickey in his office expressing admiration towards Jackie’s stance.

Throughout the movie we see the different obstacles Jackie must go through to be accepted. From having to leave his home in the middle of the night for fear of it being bombed, to being berated by fans and opposing coaches, to gradually winning the acceptance and admiration of his white teammates. Some of it’s particularly moving as a harsh reminder of America’s not too distant past.

Ultimately though, I left the film wanting to know more about Jackie Robinson. Things such as where was he from? How did he grow up? Even things like how he met his wife are startlingly absent in this film. While I do understand the time limits when filming a movie, “42” does a poor job of fleshing out Robinson’s character beyond that of an American icon. Yes, we know he integrated the game, but why did he even choose baseball to begin with? What types of relationships did he develop while in the Negro Leagues? What about how he couldn’t even get work in the majors after he retired?

All these things are relevant, but sadly are left out. Jackie Robinson is more folk hero than a living, breathing, man whose character flaws and back story are never truly revealed in “42.” That type of perspective makes for a real good appetizer, but not quite a full meal.

A Shooting Breaks Out, But National Coverage Is Slow To Follow

Imagine being at a parade on Mother’s Day in your neighborhood enjoying yourself. People are dancing and singing and just having a good time. Now imagine a shooting breaks out and people in your vicinity are shot and wounded. Sounds like a pretty frightful experience. This scenario needs no imagination for it’s exactly what happened at a second line celebration in New Orleans last weekend.

Violence has been a problem in New Orleans for a few years now since the rebuilding effort after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Still, it’s disheartening to hear 19 people wounded in a shooting when their only crime was enjoying a parade on Mother’s Day of all days. Perhaps even more troubling however, is the lack of national media attention this shooting received.

I remember seeing the word ‘New Orleans’ trending on Twitter that following Sunday evening, and CNN did mention the shooting in their nightly newscast, but within a couple of days it seemed to blow over. At a time when guns and gun ownership is a hotly debated topic in our nation, you would think a shooting at such a public event would warrant more attention. But it didn’t. Sadly, this lack of attention about the causes and circumstances behind these crimes has too often been missing in dealing with communities of color.

On December 14, 2012 the United States experienced one of the most horrific gun tragedies in our history when 26 people were killed during a shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. This event lead to a lot of grieving, soul searching and questions about the safety of our children in schools across America. What followed was a speech by President Obama later that month in Newtown, as well as public pressure on legislators to enact stiffer gun laws.

As horrific a tragedy as Newtown was, I wonder where was this concern and outrage when 50 people were shot in one weekend in Chicago during the summer of 2012? Much like the shooting in New Orleans, the national coverage was brief and it seemed that everyone just moved on with their lives after a few days. There was no public rebuke of the NRA or national discussion on gun control. Matter of fact, there wasn’t much of anything following the shootings. I couldn’t help but think when Obama finally did address the issue of gun violence in Chicago last February following the death of Hadiya Pendleton, why didn’t he give this speech last summer before Newtown, when it would have been just as pertinent?

That’s why I give a lot respect to Melissa Harris-Perry and her panel for discussing the recent shooting in New Orleans and giving this story the in-depth and critical coverage it deserves.You may be surprised at one particularly shocking statistic as well in relation to gun deaths in Louisiana. Check out the videos below.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Projecting Beyond The Wall

There was an interesting article a couple weeks back by the NY Times talking about the powerful impact that film was having on a group of female students. The twist? All of the students were inmates.

The article profiles one former inmate, 20-year-old Amirah Harris, and the impact that Tribecca Teaches had on her. Tribecca Teaches is a film program run by the Tribecca Film Institute that teaches students in New York City and Los Angeles the craft of filmmaking. The NY Times article speaks with one of the teachers in the program who taught at Rikers Island (a prison facility) and noted the positive impact it had on the women in her class. She also notes that she didn’t fear for her safety at all during the time she was teaching.

I remember hearing of a similar story on NPR radio host Michele Martin’s “Tell Me More” program, where a woman in Indiana who is a public school teacher, volunteers her time teaching inmates Shakespeare. She said that the inmates brought their own experiences into their analysis of the work, raising questions and positions that she as a teacher had never even considered before. She too stated that she had no fear for her own safety in the classroom, and that many of the inmates were just happy that someone was willing to take time out of their day to work with them.

In both these cases we see the power that art can have on a population deemed ‘undesirable’ by society. If art – whether it be film, Shakespeare, or poetry – can have these dramatic effects on prisoners, maybe we ought to rethink about arts being the first thing cut when school budgets get tight. Just a thought.

Remembering Chris Kelly and Kris Kross

There are some songs that you recognize immediately when they’re played over the airwaves. “Jump” by the rap duo Kris Kross was one of those songs.

That’s why it’s sad to hear of the passing of Chris Kelly last week who was Mac Daddy to partner Chris Smith’s Daddy Mac. The two of them combined to form Kriss Kross and in 1992 their single “Jump” appeared No 1. on the Billboard Top 100 for 8 weeks. More than 20 years later that single is still being played. R.I.P. Chris Kelly.

Was 1993 A Banner Year for Black Cinema?

There was an interesting article posted last month on The Grio that looked at the year 1993 and the amount of ‘black’ films that were released during those 12 months. Could there be another renaissance coming 20 years later?

When we talk about films starring, directed, or produced by people of color being released in theaters, it usually revolves around the dearth of such films. This is in large part due to a lack of financing many filmmakers of color simply don’t have access to. Although in recent years that has changed a bit with crowdfunding, it is still a rather large hurdle to overcome.

What makes 1993 so unique was the plethora of ‘black’ films that hit the screen that year. It was as if someone parted the seas and gave these films passage to the big screen instead of taking the all to common straight to video route.

There were biographies like “What’s Love Got To Do With It,” starring Angela Bassett as Tina Turner. There were comedies such as “Cool Runnings” and “Sister Act 2,” which starred Whoopi Goldberg. And then there were the inner-city dramas like “Menace II Society,” and “Poetic Justice,” starring Janet Jackson and the late Tupac Shakur.

Many look at the early 90s and 1993 in particular as a time when ‘black’ films had a higher chance of getting major distribution deals then at any point before or since. Do you agree? Here’s the original article.