<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Staff Editorial: Paparazzi is not Photojournalism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sundial.csun.edu/2009/10/staff-editorial-paparazzi-is-not-photojournalism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sundial.csun.edu/2009/10/staff-editorial-paparazzi-is-not-photojournalism/</link>
	<description>Breaking CSUN news and information.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:52:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Fox</title>
		<link>http://sundial.csun.edu/2009/10/staff-editorial-paparazzi-is-not-photojournalism/comment-page-1/#comment-14952</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Fox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:46:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sundial.csun.edu/?p=15661#comment-14952</guid>
		<description>Whereas I am no fan of the paparazzi, I do not entirely agree with this opinion piece.  Many a time I have seen &quot;photojournalists&quot; from leading US newspapers, sticking their wide angle lenses in to the faces of their subjects, including violent protesters, in an effort to get a reaction shot.  I would not call that photojournalism - it borders on being staged and may have little to do with an apparently associated story.  But these sensational shots are the ones that get the front page.  Why is pap photography so different?  What, exactly, is a definition of photojournalism?  I see many references to &quot;bearing witness&quot; or &quot;giving voice to the voiceless.&quot;  Sure.  But at the end of the day, are we all trust fund babies working for the odd grant here and there, are we a bunch of starving students barely scraping by but loving what we do, or are we career professionals with house payments to make?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whereas I am no fan of the paparazzi, I do not entirely agree with this opinion piece.  Many a time I have seen &#8220;photojournalists&#8221; from leading US newspapers, sticking their wide angle lenses in to the faces of their subjects, including violent protesters, in an effort to get a reaction shot.  I would not call that photojournalism &#8211; it borders on being staged and may have little to do with an apparently associated story.  But these sensational shots are the ones that get the front page.  Why is pap photography so different?  What, exactly, is a definition of photojournalism?  I see many references to &#8220;bearing witness&#8221; or &#8220;giving voice to the voiceless.&#8221;  Sure.  But at the end of the day, are we all trust fund babies working for the odd grant here and there, are we a bunch of starving students barely scraping by but loving what we do, or are we career professionals with house payments to make?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using apc
Database Caching 4/10 queries in 0.026 seconds using apc

Served from: sundial.csun.edu @ 2012-02-10 01:27:30 -->
