Allow the other side to respond

If you call someone out, or if a source calls out someone else, allow that person/organization a chance to respond.

For example, if a candidate criticizes their opponent, allow their opponent to respond to the criticism. If there is news about an organization, allow them a chance to share their point of view.

You should report your attempt in one of four ways as appropriate. I’ll use an example of Acme Company’s stock price having the sharpest fall on the Zendorf Stock Exchange in one day:

1.    “A spokesperson for Acme was not immediately available to comment.” (Report this way when you had a fast approaching deadline and your phone call or email weren't returned within an hour or two.)

2.    “A spokesperson for Acme did not respond to repeated requests for comment.” (Report this way when your phone call and email weren’t returned after several hours or a day—depending on your publication cycle)

3.    “A spokesperson for Acme declined to comment.” (Pretty much speaks for itself)

4.    Acme spokesman Winston Smith said the company is "continually reviewing operations in order to best serve shareholders and customers." He added, “We’re excited about the new products our R&D team has ready for launch next quarter.” (Or whatever their response might be.)

Here are some stories that show great examples of this:

Company to lay off many workers and sell properties:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-illinois-layoffs-20131212,0,4666988.story

Incident in parking lot after football game. After quoting police extensively, reporter gives chance for both stadium authority and team to respond:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24715325/stabbings-fights-after-broncos-game-at-mile-high-denver

A spokesman for a city being sued is given the chance to respond:
http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2013-09-19/adventist-church-files-lawsuit-against-us-city-for-blatant-religious-liberty-violation/

Which camera to buy

I get asked this question all the time…"What kind of camera should I buy?"  My answer: One you know how to use.

I don’t say that to evade the question. A good photographer can get great photos with a simple camera, but a rookie won’t be helped much with a fancier camera.

What’s more important is to know the elements of a good photograph and how a camera works. To learn, take a class, or teach yourself by doing an online search for “photography tips” or study books at the library. A great one to start is the “National Geographic Photography Field Guide.”

Another way I answer the question of which camera to buy is to tell the story of National Geographic photographer Sam Abell. Many of the world’s top photographers have lots of cameras and lenses for different situations. Sam Abell used a simple camera with a 28 mm prime lens. No zoom. When he teaches workshops, he hardly mentions equipment. He instead talks about light, or emotions and anticipation. Check out his great book, “Stay This Moment.”

OK, having said all that, if you want a recommendation, a great little camera is the Nikon CoolPix S9300 or the Canon Powershot SX260. Both are small-point-and-shoot cameras, but they have a decent size lens.

If you have a larger budget and want a single lens reflex camera, try the Nikon d90 or the Canon 60d.

Even nicer cameras are the Nikon d7000 or the Canon 7d.

Big budget? The Nikon d800 with f/2.8 lenses. But don't buy this if you don't understand what "full frame" or "aperture" is. You're not ready, and I don't want you to overspend.

Then again, you might already have a good enough camera in your pocket: your smartphone. Some of my published photos were shot with a smartphone.

Remember, the talent you develop matters more than the type of camera you have. 

I wish you great success behind the lens.  Happy shooting.

On photography: understand and pinpoint the news first; then show the issue, not the meeting

This is posting is similar to the first real posting on this blog, back on August 30. Be sure to read that post.

In the same manner, photography should highlight the news, not the meeting. Focus on the issue, not the gathering of people.

Instead of photographing a wide shot of a full Yankee Stadium, show a close-up shot of David Ortiz smacking the 9^th-inning home run that won the game for the Red Sox. That’s the news – that the Red Sox beat the Yankees. The news isn’t that the two teams played.

In the August 30 post I pointed out how many rookies cover a meeting and think that’s news. Sure, news can be found at a meeting, but the meeting itself usually isn’t news. You need to answer the question of WHY the meeting was held.

I was served a great lesson about this as a young reporter. I once worked for a small newspaper that was in a suburb of a larger city with a good daily paper. I went to a press conference that was highlighting how the interstate was going to be widened to accommodate all the traffic in the growing suburb. The larger newspaper's story on the same event was better than mine, and I'll tell you why.

I had a decent story that began with the first speaker of the press conference, then the second speaker of the press conference and then finished with the third speaker at the conference. All in all, it was a decent use of the inverted pyramid. But looking back it was a rookie story. 

The picture I ran was a shot of the first speaker of the conference – a decent news conference shot.

But the major market daily served me a lesson the next day.

After the press conference the major market newspaper sent their photographer, Carl Costas, on the interstate overpass in the evening to get a shot of all the headlights bunched together coming out the city at dusk.

The maddening daily traffic jam was the real issue. Not the press conference.

In fact, the story in the major daily hardly even mentioned the press conference.  They focused on:

- the issue
- what was going to be done about it
- what leaders said about it

There was only one brief mention of the press conference – to mention where a city officials made their comments (and it didn't appear until the fifth paragraph).

Keep this concept in mind whenever you write news or take a news photo – the most important part of journalism isn’t writing or photography, it’s first understanding what the news (issue) is. Once you identify the issue, then you can report the story and show pictures illustrating actual news beyond the event.
 

So instead of showing a wide shot of a boring meeting, get a close-up shot of the speaker who said the most newsworthy thing, made an announcement or called out somebody else.

Or even better, show a file photo of the issue that’s being voted. If the board voted to build a new school, show a picture of the property where it will be built.

If you’re at a boring meeting, don’t make readers have to suffer through it, too. Think really hard: “What’s the real issue here?”

Forget the meeting. Show us the news.