everyone is a picture editor

Newspapers are filled with talented people. We have writers that report stories on a daily basis. We have designers that create the most striking pages. We have copy editors that catch the most tedious of errors. We have headline writers, with clever short words that instantly draw you into the story. We have photographers that do an amazing job of capturing life's moments through story telling images. We have big-time editors that make important decisions. And then we have the rest of us editors--that manage and trim the fat.

With all these specialized people that do excellent work in their expertise, why does everyone believe they are a picture editor?

It's one thing to have a discussion about concerns and conflict and controversial images. It's another thing to think that you can do the job better than the person actually hired to do that job.

The Saturday before Martin Luther King Day, there is a big parade. Our photographer does a great job capturing the event and nails a wonderful picture for our Local centerpiece. Done.

During Christmas week we had a horrible murder take place just outside of Seattle. A daughter and her boyfriend killed her parents, her brother, her sister-in law and their two kids. Just an awful story. A memorial service in the small town took place on this Saturday. At first, we weren't going to be able to photograph much of the service, but once the photographer arrived, the family changed their minds and gave us access to the service. There were framed pictures of each victim---and the photographer being on top of the matter with some smart shooting---shot a mug shot of each of the framed pictures. In addition, she also sent in a few pictures from the service.

So, one of the more compelling images was a nephew speaking about the victims during the service. I thought this picture would be good as a secondary on the cover, jumping to an inside picture. Well, the local editor that day wanted a picture from the side of the framed pictures of the parents that were killed small on the cover. Up until this point we hadn't obtained copies of any pictures of the parents. This is a good valid reason for running a picture, however, the picture in question, in my opinion wasn't compelling and not a strong picture. My suggestion was to run the nephew speaking on the cover, and jump to the picture shot inside....or if it was that important to see these victims, we could mug them on cover---and then jump to the better picture.

The local editor was having none of this. And finally said to me. "Well, I'm in charge of the section and this is what I want!" So, I respond "Well, I am the photo editor of the section, and I think we need to collaborate about it." So, she proceeds to tell me she is going to call my boss.

So, luckily, I have a cool boss that doesn't mind being called on weekends. He was able to access the pictures from home and see exactly what was going on and what was being discussed. And even better, he agreed with my decision.

I don't think word editors realize that this is the same as me printing out the reporter story, doing a bunch of red ink editing on it, and tossing it on the editor's desk.

It's unfortunate that there is this "ownership" amongst editors of their sections, and I'm not just talking about this one instance or at this specific paper. I've seen it elsewhere. I just don't understand why people can't trust and respect the decisions of people that are specifically hired for a certain job. It's okay to disagree. It's okay to talk about each other's opinions. Seeing other people's points of view makes us better at what we do. Not respecting each other's opinions makes us worse.