This question is not, repeat *not* about whether raw is better than jpg. I know all the arguments and I am not trying to start yet another of those threads.

My question is whether professional photojournalists in fact, in the real world, shoot raw or jpgs? In their situation I can see that the smaller file sizes of jpgs might be helpful and the lack of dependence on fancy software; and they may not be looking for the ultimate quality benefits that raw can provide. On the other hand raw can provide "rescuability" where there isn't time to get all the settings just right in the camera.

I'm talking here about working news photographers, not artsy photographers for whom "photojournalism" is a creative style. I'm curious - what do they actually do? (Not what you think they "should" do.)
--
tim