insult to the people you are photographing and to our entire profession. But this point has been made before and some people just do not want to listen. . . .

It is a simple thing, but at least read your own paper or watch your own newscast.(4)

Part of the burden of being a newspaper photojournalist was the expectation that you went out and got newspapers to change their ways. Papers like The Seattle Times were considered difficult to change. They had larger and more rigid organizational structures than smaller papers and, in particular, a fragmentation of jobs enforced by the rules of the Newspaper Guild. Writers weren’t allowed to make photographs for the paper (unless they were on an assignment a few hundred miles away from the office); more important to us, photographers weren’t allowed to write or lay out stories. On a smaller paper, where jobs weren’t so narrowly defined, a photographer could write copy, design layouts, and even, at some newspapers, do pasteup. A photographer could have more control over all the steps in the process: the kinds of stories photographed, their selection, cropping, and sizing, and the placement of the photographs on the newspaper page in relation to the text and the headlines. In addition, smaller papers usually had more space available for displaying photographs, an important consideration when you’re making picture stories that contain several photographs.

For these and other reasons, many of us deliberately sought out jobs on small newspapers. Our thinking was that, in order to change things, we had to start at the bottom and work up. Before Kathy Andrisevic came to work at The Seattle Times, she and Rich Shulman, another graduate of the University of Missouri photojournalism program, spent nearly two years at a newspaper in Coffeyville, Kansas. Rich won the award for Newspaper Picture Editor in the Pictures of the Year contest (a prestigious