Bill Pierce
Well-known
Having spent a large amount of my time as a news photographer and loving almost every moment of it, I think this is an interesting and on target article. And, sadly, I have to agree with the criticism and look to the future. See what you think. I'd love to hear from you, especially from those who look at news pictures, but don't take them.
https://witness.worldpressphoto.org/photojournalisms-first-century-79645873e363
https://witness.worldpressphoto.org/photojournalisms-first-century-79645873e363
charjohncarter
Veteran
I'm not sure about Allan Toynbee's quote (‘(it)is just one damn thing after another’). I think W. C. Fields said the same thing in the 30s or 40s. But I had never thought about 'photojournalism' until this forum. I suppose the first bit of this genre I remember was photos of kids from Biafra in the 50s. But the real impact, for me, was post JFK assassination with photos of Oswald getting it in Dallas. Still, I really never thought about photojournalists manipulating society. But like Toynbee and Fields I never paid much attention to photojournalist, it was just one damn thing after another.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
There is no shortage of subject matter. The problem is on the demand side.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
OP did serious work to find some extra long writing on wordpress. But...
100 years ago or now, no diffrence.
Pictures might be taken or might be restricted from taking.
Nothing changed from this perspective and nothing changed in human nature.
Everyone wants to see it from trusted sources.
Some trusts pictures from magazines sold before cash register.
Some trust pictures and narrative by RT.
Some trust CNN and other left media agenda (boys and older native recent case)
And some are willing to subscribe and pay for Vice.
Demand for truth, selfillusion and for manipulating hasn't changed.
Super bowl has one advertisement this year.
About photo journalism. People are still risking for it.
And people like Georgy Romanov are still saving money and going to Japan alone, with sleep tent and bicycle to take pictures and tell the story.
And our local newspaper camera guy is at every event and yesterday I liked another local media.
100 years ago or now, no diffrence.
Pictures might be taken or might be restricted from taking.
Nothing changed from this perspective and nothing changed in human nature.
Everyone wants to see it from trusted sources.
Some trusts pictures from magazines sold before cash register.
Some trust pictures and narrative by RT.
Some trust CNN and other left media agenda (boys and older native recent case)
And some are willing to subscribe and pay for Vice.
Demand for truth, selfillusion and for manipulating hasn't changed.
Super bowl has one advertisement this year.
About photo journalism. People are still risking for it.
And people like Georgy Romanov are still saving money and going to Japan alone, with sleep tent and bicycle to take pictures and tell the story.
And our local newspaper camera guy is at every event and yesterday I liked another local media.
shimokita
白黒
The two ways to look at articles like this are at face value and/or what's the agenda.
Lewis Bush has an agenda... "I start from the standpoint that power is always problematic because its natural resting state is arbitrary and untransparent. Irrespective of the intentions of the people and institutions possessing it, this is the state to which power constantly seeks to return."
The mission of "World Press Photo" (based in Amsterdam) and its online magazine "Witness" is to promote "new thinking and new talent in visual journalism and storytelling. ... Connecting the world to the stories that matter" via "photojournalism, documentary photography, infographics, interactives, multimedia, video journalism—and things that have not yet been invented."
History is only relevant as seen in the context of today and I prefer my intake of the four W's via the still photo and text rather than video... I do tune in the news on TV (NHK & BBC), but more often than not I just listen while doing other work.
PJ, like other reporting has never been unbiased... it's definitely not the reason for a so called "decline" in still photography reporting and in the end that's not problematic, rather it's the nature of the beast best taken with a grain of salt or a glass of red. For all his dithering, Lewis Bush finally makes his point...
Who [and what] are we photographing, and why?
How are we photographing these things, and why?
Who are we photographing for?
Lewis Bush has an agenda... "I start from the standpoint that power is always problematic because its natural resting state is arbitrary and untransparent. Irrespective of the intentions of the people and institutions possessing it, this is the state to which power constantly seeks to return."
The mission of "World Press Photo" (based in Amsterdam) and its online magazine "Witness" is to promote "new thinking and new talent in visual journalism and storytelling. ... Connecting the world to the stories that matter" via "photojournalism, documentary photography, infographics, interactives, multimedia, video journalism—and things that have not yet been invented."
History is only relevant as seen in the context of today and I prefer my intake of the four W's via the still photo and text rather than video... I do tune in the news on TV (NHK & BBC), but more often than not I just listen while doing other work.
PJ, like other reporting has never been unbiased... it's definitely not the reason for a so called "decline" in still photography reporting and in the end that's not problematic, rather it's the nature of the beast best taken with a grain of salt or a glass of red. For all his dithering, Lewis Bush finally makes his point...
Who [and what] are we photographing, and why?
How are we photographing these things, and why?
Who are we photographing for?
ndnik
Established
There is nothing specific to photojournalism in the analysis presented in the article. The above quote from the article, which sums up the questions that the author thinks need (new) answers, apply to any form of journalism, reporting, even simple story telling.
I doubt the answers we photographers would come up with would differ from the answers other types of reporters would give. Why would they, after all photojournalism is journalism using photography as a medium, not as an end by itself.
- N.
BillBingham2
Registered User
I look at this as an unintended consequence to the changes in investments/markets over the past 40 years. As private owners of news sources sell their companies and they become publicly traded companies now answering to a board and thousands of stock holders. They now are not only competing with other papers, stations, or any other news source now they compete with Apple, Amazon, or mutual funds for investment dollars.
As the internet decimated advertising in print media cutbacks came to writers, editors and yes photojournalists. We are starting to find a new balance with paywalls going up to create a electronic access subscription. It will take about four years or so for this approach top help stabilize funding existing and new news sources.
It sucks, but it’s called the dark side of capitalism.
Who, same folks we always have been, those who make the news and those impacted by the event.
How are we, the same old way but thousands of folks with smart phones around the world.
For whom, in some cases subscribers, web site viewer, a much wider audience see more than they ever had before.
B2 (;->
As the internet decimated advertising in print media cutbacks came to writers, editors and yes photojournalists. We are starting to find a new balance with paywalls going up to create a electronic access subscription. It will take about four years or so for this approach top help stabilize funding existing and new news sources.
It sucks, but it’s called the dark side of capitalism.
Who, same folks we always have been, those who make the news and those impacted by the event.
How are we, the same old way but thousands of folks with smart phones around the world.
For whom, in some cases subscribers, web site viewer, a much wider audience see more than they ever had before.
B2 (;->
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Here’s some additional information as to digital media.
https://www.ai-ap.com/publications/article/24588/trending-what-went-wrong-in-digital-media.html
https://www.ai-ap.com/publications/article/24588/trending-what-went-wrong-in-digital-media.html
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Sorry but those are two questions...
Aside from the writing like this, and ignoring the prologue's...confusion, maybe? about dates, I think the several questions he wants to ask about photojournalism are the same questions that should be asked about any other journalism.
I really only disagree with this:
This would be a serious mistake--or, rather, is a serious mistake. I think this splintering of news and information is happening now, has been for a while, and is a large part of what stokes the divisions I see here in the US, at least. A bigger part is, I'm convinced, that adults who should know better aren't very clear on what is news and what is opinion.
Rob
Contarama
Well-known
I was reading the old farts thread the other day and it occurred to me how truly nice it is to have old hands like yourself and a few others right there easy access and actively working and thinking of and promoting the community. Cameras and snaps...yeah!
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Hey Bill, I've refrained from responding to this thread because you asked for responses "from those who look at news pictures, but don't take them."
But I stumbled across an article today in the NYT that I think expands on some of the points from the one you posted, or at least makes certain points in your article clearer for me. I read the article you linked to and it raised a number of questions that I did not know how to answer. Still don't, but when I read this piece in the NYT, it felt like it was along the lines of what you posted. Still confused, but starting to see more clearly what your article was referring to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/magazine/when-the-camera-was-a-weapon-of-imperialism-and-when-it-still-is.html
Best,
-Tim
But I stumbled across an article today in the NYT that I think expands on some of the points from the one you posted, or at least makes certain points in your article clearer for me. I read the article you linked to and it raised a number of questions that I did not know how to answer. Still don't, but when I read this piece in the NYT, it felt like it was along the lines of what you posted. Still confused, but starting to see more clearly what your article was referring to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/magazine/when-the-camera-was-a-weapon-of-imperialism-and-when-it-still-is.html
Best,
-Tim