Mother Jones Photo Blog

Mother Jones is probably flipping in her grave! As much good work that Mother Jones does; the venue that it has provided for great documentary photography; what the magazine stands for; has advocated and defended, it’s atrocious that they would want photographers to submit work for free. It’s belittling a photographers hard labor and particularly Lightstalkers members who tend to be of a higher caliber than your average Flickr member. And sending out a “glorified intern” who paints himself as being a scruffy street urchin. (He’s living in pricey San Francisco, so times can’t be too tough).

Enough LS members have written with indignation about such pleas for free work which ‘reward’ photographers with ‘a byline’ or ‘credit,’ and advised beginning photographers when asking about such requests many creative ways to tell the publication, organization or editor to shove it. Seeing many parallels to issues in Hollywood’s writers strike, I hope folks here take the time to let Mother Jones know how you feel. It’s enough for a long time subscriber to cancel his subscription.

Contact Us:
Mother Jones Magazine
222 Sutter Street
6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
tel. 415.321.1700
fax. 415.321.1701

Thanks, and feel free to spread the word!

Isn’t this what all the tv and movie writers are striking about right now?

Michael’s right. This is atrocious. It’s one thing for something like Blueeyes or Foto8 (hope not to drag that debate up again), but it’s another for an institution with such a great reputation for financially supporting great photojournalism to ask for free photos. Not to mention that Mother Jones is getting paid for each view of that photoblog; I counted a number of advertisements prominently placed throughout the page. Perhaps, if nothing else, the photoblog could try a different model of payment along the lines of Metacafe’s revenue sharing for user submitted videos. Pageviews might not be the way to do it, but perhaps a percentage of the cost of advertising for that day could be paid to the photographer featured that day.

Some great photos on there already, including a superb shot by Paolo Pellegrin, who is presumably hoping to get more book sales from the exposure on that site. But the point is that by not paying the contributors, Mother Jones is devaluing
their work. And I should bloody well hope they are not “making any kind of rights grab either”. Let amateurs, people looking to promote their books and others send their photos in for free,but like many other Lightstalkers members I will not be sending them or anyone else my images for free. Smart, Fearless Journalism indeed-sounds like a recipe for going out of business to me and not smart at all to be giving your work away for free.

And sending out a “glorified intern” who paints himself as being a scruffy street urchin. (He’s living in pricey San Francisco, so times can’t be too tough).

I wasn’t going to reply to anything on this post, fully expecting the (justified) criticism of the non-paying for photo blog entries. But, I’m sorry Michael, you know NOTHING about me or my current living (sharing a 300 sq ft. studio with my girlfriend in sketchy neighborhood in Oakland), how much money I may or may not have (hey! my bank account is in the positive, I have $9!), or anything else about me.

Criticize the magazine and its policies all you want (I actually more or less agree with the above points of indignation), but the personal digs are uncalled for.

Welcome to photojournalism. I’m sorry I hurt your feelings. I also share the sentiment in regards to non-paid internships; Mother Jones should be paying you (or more if they are). Your work looks good and you deserve it. Be bold and advocate for photographers; someday, you won’t be a “glorified intern” and will want the compensation you deserve for your hard work.

“And sending out a “glorified intern” who paints himself as being a scruffy street urchin. (He’s living in pricey San Francisco, so times can’t be too tough).”
“Welcome to photojournalism.”

actually michael,that is not what photo-journalism is about. making unsubstantiated claims about someone else’s character or circumstances is tabloid journalism.

Mother Jones Picture Editor – Chloe Sherman, csherman@motherjones.com

Mother Jones doesn’t currently have a photo editor. Chloe hasn’t worked here in a while, neither has Sarah Kehoe (the other former photo editor).

And Michael, my feelings aren’t hurt. No hard feelings on my end at all.

You’re absolutely right Michael (Bowring). It wasn’t the best way to make my point. It sounds like Mark made the point to the powers that be at Mother Jones about the free work issue.

who has no flickr account these days ;)) ??

OK so if anyone has the editor’s email address (which isn’t on the website) post it here please so we can lodge our concern.

BTW – you have an excellent magazine.

O, my god………………..

one of the most important magazines in my political/educational maturity(?): if there be a sentimental education that I was weened upon in the early 80’s as a university student, i’d shout out 2 things:

1. Punk Rock (’Lectric Bannana, DC Hardcore, Alphabetcity, etc)

2. Mother Jones Mag….

to wit, from the mast head:

“MARY HARRIS “MOTHER” JONES
{1837-1930}
ORATOR, UNION ORGANIZER, AND HELLRAISER"

I’m curious if James (LS member) was paid for his important essay on China “Last Empire.”

or Brian Ullrich, or Andrew Testa (will send him an email) or Paul Fusco/Magnum (Magnum dole it out for free, Fusco heart-breaking essay?) or those who i know and see personally like Lana Šlezić or my close personal friend Rita Leistner (part of the unembedded photographers on Iraq in that magnificent essay with Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, Kael and Thorne) …

Yo Rita, I’ve already dashed off a note to you), what’s ur take on all this……….

I’ve written extensively enough (and I hope eloquently) at LS over the last 2 1/2 years about this issue not to re-tread (for the members sake ;)) ), my own stance, but this is dire….

Mother Jones: soliciting for free pics from photographers and photo-journalists….

and exquisite corpse indeed….

heart sunk, thump, thump, thumP…

depressed
bob

I’ve just flown through all the blog….though “funded” by Marc himself (it’s comprised of most of his work, which given the nature of how interns are often treated and to which they often respond baitedly, I understand), I find it, again, an exercise in extraordinary contradiction, especially given the magazine’s belief and history with regard to photography and journalism at large. More discouraging to me as well, are many of the images posted there: name of the photographer and associated press “Zuma Press,” which to me would normally have suggested payment for the profession, but I also know that Zuma is also manifest as part of citizen journalists, but I still wonder, if Zuma needs $$ to survive, what about the photographers??….

as for Paolo’s images: it’s more of an advertisement and not a “photo of the day” submitted…

in the end, it’s all terribly distressing….

so, the divide between MJ and Flickr, evaporated in the blink of a hydrogen-eye twitch….

Stupid is right: Nietzche was right: god(s) are dead…..

Hey Mark,

Damn…. yer positive $9 in yer account? doin alot better than some of us living here in the waaay overpriced, underpaying and uber-competitive bay. I just finally got my rent payed today, after saving a few of my whopping $125 newspaper day rate checks. (this in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation).

Sorry Mother J is sending you to do her dirty work, as I have love for the type of work being done over there, but not if they are going to go down this road.

Come over to the other side of the bridge, I just found a bar that serves up $2-you call-its… drinks on me.

Like I keep stupidly repeating, the next logical step is for pros to start paying to get their photos abused in the press.

mother jones of all publications?

especially now with all of their brand spankin’ new fund raising drive going on?

you have got to be kidding me.

PLEASE TAKE FIVE MINUTES AND WRITE:

Letters to the editor can be sent by mail to:
Editors at Mother Jones
222 Sutter St., Ste 600,
San Francisco, CA 94108

Can someone post the email addresses of Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery, the co-editors in cheif?

I’m curious if James (LS member) was paid for his important essay on China “Last Empire.”

or Brian Ullrich, or Andrew Testa (will send him an email) or Paul Fusco/Magnum (Magnum dole it out for free, Fusco heart-breaking essay?) or those who i know and see personally like Lana Šlezić or my close personal friend Rita Leistner (part of the unembedded photographers on Iraq in that magnificent essay with Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, Kael and Thorne) …

No need to over-react about this. Of course they got paid. We’re simply soliciting photos for a photo blog, not the magazine. I don’t agree with the practice, but no, the photo blog submissions are not paid. Work for the magazine is paid, and paid at a very fair, standard rate. I think James Delano is he’s happy with how much he’s getting for his China photos (which are excellent, by the way).

FYI, the online/web department and the art departments have seperate budgets. And aside from me helping out with it, the art department doesn’t have anything to do with the photo blog. The two departments don’t really overlap at all.

And Brian, I’ll take you up on the drink! I work in the City, so an after work drink is in order.

For free, feel free to use what I have in my SP LS gallery, but make sure to give me credit. The best work I have to offer for free is here.

quick follow up:

yes, MJ paid the photographers I sighted (i’ve communicated with some of them as they’re friends of mine) and this further vitiates the grounds under which this blog has emerged…by the way MJ pays well, very well and I am happy for James (a great story) as for the other photographers who received compensation…what I am not content with (and so choose to voice a dissenting voice as well as disillusionment) is the magazine’s solicitation of photography without compensation…what further irks me, frankly, is is the justification for this: the bifurcation of the online/web dept and the art dept…come on Mark, give me a break. The reason I pointed out the essay (james, brian, adrew, rita et all) was to point out this contradiction and a practice that is, in fact, antithetical to both the magazine (history and principle) and the profession. It is this very disconnect that is so startling to me and no amount of linguistic ballet will remedy this.

It’s depressing and I feel sad that as a working photographer/PJ yourself you don’t understand, or seem to understand, the maddening frustration of such language.

Call a spade a spade: it’s a lousy effort for a magazine as respectful and critical (given it’s own manifesto) and important to photography as MJ to approach photographers for non-compensatory work, while paying others….

as a photographer, and as a reader of MJ, I’m pretty saddened:

it’s the way of the world, cool, whatever, just dont feed me justification, please. I am too old and wearied for that Mark.

Best of luck
bob

one last bit:

photography and photographs IS content just as much as the essay and the writing/journalism done for the magazine. Content providers are paid by the magazine; staff is paid by the magazine; subscribers pay, (i pay each time i purchase); MJ must pay its creditors, etc. PHoto-of-the-day IS CONTENT and provides attraction and eyes and material to the website, which affects traffic/eyes (if even only for duration). All this contributes to MJ’s bottom line, which incidentally is often used to found investigatory journalism (written and photographic). There is NO different between a photograph in the magazine and on the webpage and any linguistic samaurai chop separating the too is a goddardian leap that boggles my mind. as a writer and a photographer i am horrified (thought not surprised) that MJ doesnt understand this…and the photographers who religiously (like i) believe in MJ as a bastion of ethic?….

If i sound like a winer or putz, let me remind what Mother Jones stood for….that’s the biggest irony of all…Im a photographer and a writer not a careerist and ive, through writing about this issue, already alienated from my work on of the few magazines that probably would be amenable to printing my kind of documentary work (Private) but because I believe in a certain principle, im not willing to not speak up in defense of this principle…even though it’s a drowning swansong….

ok, that’s enough shit from me…but, just spare me the insuitation that because the accounting books are kept differently that web/blog content is less legitimate (should be free folks there) then the printed page….

’nuff

b

Dear Mother Jones -

I’m soliciting submissions to my magazine blog. I can’t pay for submissions, but if you have any magazines that are languishing in your publishing facility, and want them read, a little exposure, this is a great way to do so. I’ll leave them out on my coffee table for visitors to my house to see, and if you’re lucky, some might even subscribe and bring you in some income.

Please send submissions to my house.

bob, you are great