professionalization of news photography. “Professionalization” was code for gaining autonomy at work and the respect of fellow workers. Our battlecry was, “Out of the darkroom and into the newsroom.” (1) We believed that photographers had to get control of the assigning, editing, and displaying of photographs in the newspaper if we were ever going to be anything more than second-class citizens. To do all these things, we had to spend less time in the darkroom and make ourselves a presence in the newsroom. We had to educate editors and reporters about photographs: what made a good assignment and how photographs should be used in the newspaper.

It was social mobility, pure and simple, but not for individuals. It was the collective mobility of the occupation we strove for. We were demanding greater status in the newsroom as a group. We wanted to be recognized as the intellectual and creative equals of writers, not their dumb appendages.(2) Few things exasperated Kathy Andrisevic more than hearing reporters use the phrase “my photographer,” which implied that we were inferior to them. We said, “I’m not your photographer!” whenever reporters said that on an assignment. We discussed when and how to complain. Should we object in front of “the subject”? Or was it more professional to talk to the reporter later?

We had been trained to gather information, check names, and figure out what the story was, just like word people, as we called them and they called themselves. (The newspaper world was divided into word people and picture people.) We prided ourselves on being able to generate our own story ideas, write copy and captions, and design layouts — all jobs that had routinely been done by word people but were now considered an important part of a photojournalist’s education. We believed that we had to be able to hold our own with the word people, on their terms, in order to gain their respect.

At that time, the job of Assistant Managing Editor of Graphics — someone who