Sports Illustrated with a lot less illustration

It's no secret that print journalism has faced immense challenges in the past 20 years or so.

The popularity of the Internet has grown immensely during that time. Newspapers have provided articles and photos free of charge to anyone with a computer and a web browser. Cell phones evolved from having a reputation for being the exclusive property of doctors and drug dealers to being as ubiquitous as a wallet or a purse, if not more so. The phones themselves evolved from being enormous and clunky, usable for just a few minutes of emergency communication to being portable combinations of telephone, computer and other electronic devices.

Newspapers realized all too late that providing all, or an overwhelming majority, of their content for free from the early days of the Internet's popularity was a bad decision. On March 5, 2007, the website NewspaperDeathWatch.com was founded, "chronicling the decline of newspapers and the rebirth of journalism," according to its banner. Along the left side of the front page is a list of newspapers that shuttered their doors.

Magazines certainly aren't immune to the pressures that have turned some newspapers into shadows of their former selves. A particularly unfortunate example of this happened Thursday when Sports Illustrated laid off its last six staff photographers.

"There was a decision made through the company to restructure various departments, including at Sports Illustrated," said the magazine's director of photography Brad Smith. "Unfortunately economic circumstances are such that it has cut the six staff photographers."

The photographers could still shoot photos for the magazine in a freelance capacity and the layoffs will take effect in March, meaning the six laid off photogs will still work Super Bowl XLIX in Glendale, Ariz. However, Smith's words arguing that the magazine remains committed to high quality photography ring especially hollow.

"Our commitment to photography is as strong as ever, and we will continue to create the best original content possible," he said.

Riiiight.

A small community newspaper, be it a weekly newspaper or a monthly rag may not be able to afford a staff photographer on salary and may rely on photographers who shoot as a hobby or may have retired from full time work and don't need money earned from taking photos for a newspaper to put food on the table. Even larger newspapers have seen reporters be required to take pictures while writing stories.

I know first hand that entrusting photos to someone who isn't a photographer by trade is a crap shoot at best. When I was managing editor of The Prince George's Sentinel, I was extremely lucky to have a staff photographer who put extensive thought into shot composition and getting the right mood for a photo going with a story. I was also lucky to have freelance writers along the way who took good photos. I even managed to take some photos that impressed our very talented staff photographer.

However, I also saw publications where the quality of photos taken by reporters or others who worked for the newspaper suffered enormously.

One of my friends showed me a tweet he encountered that said the following: "Sports Illustrated laid off all its photographers so the swimsuit issue will just be selfies."

The news of Sports Illustrated's layoffs of its staff photographers hits especially hard because I still have vivid memories of coming home from school as a high school student on Thursdays and grabbing Sports Illustrated as soon as I walked in the door. Before I even touched my homework, and sometimes even instead of doing my homework for the night, I read Sports Illustrated. Back then, I was a budding writer and an avid sports fan. I used to read Sports Illustrated and I used to be captivated by the quality of the writing. I even remember dreaming that one day, my words would grace the pages of Sports Illustrated.

Years later, I made that childhood dream come true in a sense. In 2010, I was a sometime writer for Yahoo! Voices, and they contacted me about writing a piece in which I profiled the sporting venues and teams in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. When I got the e-mail on May 26, 2010 that it was published on Sports Illustrated's online site, I was insanely happy. Even my parents -- who hate sports and don't follow sports -- realized what a big deal it was to be published by Sports Illustrated.

That's why seeing the magazine's decline in quality from being appointment reading every Thursday to being just another publication ditching an example of what it did best in the effort to save the almighty dollar is especially heartbreaking. I certainly feel for the six men who now will no longer earn a salary for their photos. Certainly, having to find another job in an economy that still carries reminders of the Great Recession is tough. But their loss is more than just one publication looking to save money. It's a symbol of the plight of far too many people who struggled to make ends meet in living their passion who end up having to find other ways to keep a roof over their heads.

If that doesn't demonstrate how far a publication that once was the gold standard for journalism has fallen, I don't know what does.