The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is the camera on the phone worth it?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2015 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 563 times Debate No: 71374
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Newspapers are facing increased pressure to cut down on staff to minimize costs, and a new report by Pew Research Center shows exactly who is being hit the hardest.

Photographers, artists and videographers have experienced a 43 percent decrease in jobs since 2000, dropping from 6,171 to only 3,493 jobs in 2012 -- the largest difference faced by newspaper staffers, according to the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE). Reporters and writers were next in line, with jobs dropping by 32 percent. Copy editors, layout editors and online producers lost 27% of all jobs.

The ASNE also reported there was a loss of 2,600 full time journalist in 2012, dropping from 40,600 to 38,000 daily newspaper journalists.

The job decreases come as a result of budget cuts in the wake of a digital shift towards social media and mobile platforms as a new means of journalism. And there is no sign of this letting up. In May, the Chicago Sun--Times cut its photography department completely, eliminating 28 positions. The Atlanta Journal--Constitution recently announced an initiative to turn many of their photographers into "multimedia visual journalists" in their midst of planned layoffs.

But it isn't just photographers either. Just recently, the Tribune Co. reported cutting 360 positions in the beginning nine months of 2013, 240 of those occurred in just the third quarter alone.

I argue that the creation of the mobile phone with a camera hurt the news and photography industry to much and should not be manufactured any longer.


Banning cameras on mobile phones to help "save" news and photography jobs would be like banning cars to save the bicycle and horse riding industry. Times change, progress happens, and people make their choices that lead to some winners and some losers.

In forcing phone manufactures to no longer offer cameras as options on their phones you are basically refusing to allow people to have something they want in favor of your belief that news and photography jobs are more important than what people want. In fact, if the people wanted more news and news related photography from the sources you mention, the people would do so, if they are not then clearly the public at large has demonstrated their preference of the alternatives over those old established and now slowly going extinct forms of information.

Lastly, how exactly do we impose this restriction on the people and companies to no longer allow cameras on phones? Do we have our Government proclaim that it is their job to "save" news and photography jobs as more important than our individual rights to have these options if we want them? Once we let Government make that kind of decision, what is next? Once they start it is generally accepted that Government will continue to expand on the idea to new areas never intended by the original act and laws.

I argue that what is dying is dying for a reason and taking extreme measure to try and "save" it is always nothing more than delaying the inevitable and only serves to hurt society in general and leads to more harm than good in the long run.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok then.
The Contender made excellent points in the last round.

Instead of banning cameras on phones, the news industry journalists and photographers should realize that to get more money their business they should not except any out side sources. With people that give info for free their job would be hurt. To compromise people would still be able to post their own news on a social media webpage, just not on the actual news info unless exclusively important.


So now we shift to restricting a private business (this is what news corporations are) from accepting information from anyone not directly employed by the news agency?

So you are saying that when Snowden released all that classified information about domestic snooping by our Government the news should have ignored it and not report on it because it was not uncovered from a directly employed worker? When Donald Sterling was recorded by his personal prostitute saying racist things about Blacks no news organization should report on it because a direct employee did not collect the information themselves? Some of the footage of natural disasters also comes from regular eye witnesses, news can't use eye witness established imagery and recordings?

And to be honest, I have issue on how we are to define "actual news"? What is news if not just sharing of the information and events that are happening with others? Must someone be a part of a massive multi-national corporation to be considered "actual news"? What if people do not trust these massive corporations to give unfiltered news? What if they turn to other forms of information to avoid the inherent bias of the big Corporate news outlets? Just because other outlets are not run by the corporations does that men they are not supplying "actual news"?

I again go back to my main point, times are changing, companies can't just sit there and complain about the changing times and must themselves change to keep up or accept their end.

It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change. -~ Charles Darwin

A wise man adapts himself to circumstances, as water shapes itself to the vessel that contains it. -- Chinese Proverb
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.