Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times Covers After the Stanley Cup Finals

[Earth_First]

After the Chicago Sun-Times laid off its entire staff of photographers at the end of last month, the newspaper’s editor sent out a memo stating that employees would be trained in using their smartphones to contribute photography (“iPhone photography basics,” it was called).

We may be starting to see the negative effects of having an army of staff iPhoneographers rather than photojournalists. The side-by-side comparison above shows what the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times newspaper covers looked like on June 26th, 2013, two days after the Stanley Cup finals.

Both papers feature cover stories about the Chicago Blackhawks defeating the Boston Bruins to win their fifth NHL championship. Both featured photos were taken for their respective papers… but they’re quite different. Here’s a closer look at the two covers:

[center][/center]

One of them looks like a photograph captured by a photojournalist, while the other looks like an iPhone snapshot. Why was the Sun-Times cover photo used when there were plenty of photographs floating around on the wires that could have been licensed? Perhaps it was done in protest...

http://petapixel.com/2013/06/27/chicago-tribune-and-sun-times-covers-after-the-stanley-cup-finals/

[LTR]

1. It's a shame what's happening to the newspaper industry

The industry is suffering badly and the response is not to make a better product but to cheapen it as much as possible. A shame, since the Sun-Times reinvigorated itself a few years ago when they decided to return to their liberal working class roots.

My local paper is worthless now, since they fired their top columnists, cartoonists and reporters. And then they raised the cover price to $1.00! For a thin rag with mostly ads.

Even USA Today, which became hugely successful adapting to the TV generation, looks terrible after last year's redesign. Now it looks like a cheap local shopper rag.