Stock photos are an unfortunate necessity in getting news stories online these days, and they can be a righteous pain in the arse. But they still need to be there, because entire online content management systems are built round them, and if there isn't some kind of picture attached to a story, there there will be a gap in the page, and that's failing the #1 rule of “filling the fucking space”.
But some stories are impossible to get any photos for, because they're court cases where it's against the fucking law to show anything, or breaking news stories, where something happened just minutes ago.
That's where the good old file pic comes into the frame. If all else fails, there is always the court crest or police car for some story about law and order (but for God's sake, don't use that gavel, because some fucking smartarse will point out that they don't use it in NZ). Stories about mental illness or domestic abuse are particularly difficult, which is why editors often resort to 'miserable person with head in hands' stock pose.
These photos are pure symbolism, everyone know they don't literally mean what they represent, and we're all okay with it. Unless it's any kind of stories involving dogs or planes, and then it better be the exact right fucking breed or aircraft, because there are loads of people out there, champing at the bit to point out it's the wrong one, eager to show how much smarter they are than everybody else.
But it can be amazingly difficult to get the right shot, because news agencies don't have access to a bottomless reservoir of photographs. Even with access to a stock photo outfit like Thinkstock or 123rf.com, or with an account with Getty or Reuters or AFP, there can still be massive holes in a photo library for an online outfit. Sometimes it can be insanely hard to get something basic, like a reasonably well-known public figure.
No wonders so many editors are using Twitter or Facebook bios to get images of people. There is still a massive grey area around using images from social media, and editors should always make the effort to ask the person about the photo (if they're alive), but there might not be a lot of choice involved, and profile pics are about as public as it gets.
But sometimes, even when an online editor knows exactly what sort of pic they need, it can take an ridiculously long time to find the right shot. There are also issues of legal problems – a stock image can't have any kind of recognisable face in it, or the person involved might raise a bloody and justifiable fuss when they are linked to something they never had anything to do with. Court stories must be as generic as possible, unless you want to accuse some poor store-worker of some heinous crime.
And there are hundreds of breeds and cross-breeds of dogs, and all sorts of airplanes, and sometimes, it can prove almost impossible to find the exact right one which matches the story perfectly. So things have to be as generic as humanly possible, because anything that is actually identifiable will get the nerds foaming. It might not be a work of art, but it'll fill the fucking space.
- Steve Lombard
Posts
