My take
My take
Here's my comment, posted on Magnum's web site (approval pending):
My first thought when I saw this first photo was something like: "what the heck is this!?"
Then, thinking about it for a few minutes and reading the photographer's own comments, I fully understand and appreciate the reasoning behind the photos. Personally, I agree with many of the points made. I'm also sick and tired of all the staged pretty pictures we see every day.
That being said, my main concern with photos like these is that "most people" will consider them amateurish snapshots. If the photos don't appear "professional", why would the reader (I'm a newspaper guy) trust the written text that goes along with them? I'm afraid you'll get a "if they can't afford to send a real photographer, why would they send a real reporter. I can't take this seriously.."- kind of reaction. (In the real world, I'm not sure if people really cares that much about picture quality any more, but hopefully I'm wrong).
It's a good thing that Newsweek printed these photos, but I can't help wondering if they would have done so if they had been taken by some unknown guy that wasn't a Magnum photographer?
Finally, a remark to your comment that "a photographer is much more akin to an editorial columnist than a reporter". Not true, in my opinion. I'm a professional journalist - and a former photographer - and can assure you that you have to make the same editorial decisions as a writer. I agree there's
no objective photojournalism, but there's no objective journalism either. Not really. You always have to decide what to include and what to omit in a story.
Jarle