Does The NY Times’ Sochi Photo “Firehose” Do Photogs a Disservice?

Today The New York Times launched a live stream of images from Sochi, which they’re dubbing a “Firehose.” It funnels images by Times photographers and from the paper’s wire service feeds, and evidently there will be roughly 14,000 images per day coming through the, ahem, hose.

The images are running without captions. And while there are many great photographs, there are many others that leave us to guess what’s happening in the image, and which are pretty ho-hum without context (see: athlete celebrating win, for something, who knows what?)

There are good things about the site. It has a simple design and big photos. It’s giving a lot of images that wouldn’t make it into media outlets a run in a central place. And the site is presented by United Airlines, so they aren’t just giving this away. People who love sports pictures and can’t get enough of them can watch them stream by, and so what if there are no captions? Most of them you can figure out. And it’s not as if this replaces galleries of edited and captioned pictures.

But does this diminish not only the perceived value of the images, but also the editorial selection and captioning process at a time when the public perception of photography is that it’s so abundant it’s worth very little? Maybe. The name “Firehose” seems like self-parody, an admission that the flow of images has devalued photography to the point that the Times has decided to just throw up their hands and open the valve.

Perhaps we’re making too much of this? Maybe we should sit back and let the stream wash over us? What you do you think, dear reader?

Tags: , ,

2 Responses to “Does The NY Times’ Sochi Photo “Firehose” Do Photogs a Disservice?”

  1. Hasi Says:

    I think the New York Times wants to be the be-all and end-all of the news industry. The NYT wants to give us everything so that we don’t go anywhere else for anything. The NYT is the voice of an evil empire.

  2. Sal Says:

    The “firehose” is not on at the moment but I looked at the photo recaps of the days. Those are great photos and obviously culled down to the best of the best. 14,000…is probably 13,950 random pictures with maybe 50 that should be actually be used anywhere.