What's happening to photojournalists?

[Bill Pierce]

For anybody interested in what is happening to photojournalism, here’s an important post

eyeQ Press - The First Book!

http://kennethjarecke.typepad.com/mostly_true/

Here’s Ken's website, which shows the incredible range of his photography.

http://www.kennethjarecke.com/

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Bill,

What's happening?

People will pay $600 for an iPad and then expect all content to be free. Odd how they don't expect free iPads... Photojournalists have to find new markets.

I saw a great T-shirt in Arles: SAVE A JOURNALIST -- BUY A NEWSPAPER.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Vics]

Our local Press Democrat (daily) still has four staff photographers.

 

[Matus]

Maybe one way to save photojournalism is to become a form of .. art

It really is a pity. I personally buy newspaper rarely (beat me), but I do NOT expect to get all the content around for free - but there is so much stuff out there for free that it makes me wondering how the news agencies make their living. Maybe a complete change in the business model is necessary (not that I would have one at hand right now) - the graphical input is not less important today that it was before (though there is much more video stuff today). It seems like the way news agencies are trying to undercut their competition they are putting themselves on the edge of profitability. Then they start cutting the cost everywhere - and photographers seem to be the first to go. So shortsighted ...

 

[Harry S.]

Newspapers in Australia feature terrible photographs, and I prefer to live in a paperless environment as much as possible. As a matter of fact, I dont harbor much of a soft-side for the majority of photojournalists- the ones I see are always rude, obnoxious and arrogant. Harsh as it sounds, I dont think of them as photographers like anyone here, they are "camera operators" who could care less about a photo usually.

I mean no offense to any working PJ's here. I just dont see it as that romantic job it might have once been.

 

[huntjump]

Newspapers in Australia feature terrible photographs, and I prefer to live in a paperless environment as much as possible. As a matter of fact, I dont harbor much of a soft-side for the majority of photojournalists- the ones I see are always rude, obnoxious and arrogant. Harsh as it sounds, I dont think of them as photographers like anyone here, they are "camera operators" who could care less about a photo usually.

I mean no offense to any working PJ's here. I just dont see it as that romantic job it might have once been.

www.boston.com/bigpicture
I dont think you give much credence to those who are still out there doing great work, but I'm sure you've met some bad ones that soured your view.


As an environmentalist, i try to avoid too much paper. Not to say digital is all green and friendly, but saves some trees. I think the news is being given away for free online, in exchange for massive advertising and corporations owning them.

The reason I support NPR is because they are not owned by Murdoch and like folks...and I'd be willing to pay for online newspapers if they weren't so corporate, biased and poor journalism.

 

[jsrockit]

Here’s Ken's website, which shows the incredible range of his photography.

http://www.kennethjarecke.com/

Thanks... beautiful work here.

 

[kshapero]

www.boston.com/bigpicture
I dont think you give much credence to those who are still out there doing great work, but I'm sure you've met some bad ones that soured your view.


As an environmentalist, i try to avoid too much paper. Not to say digital is all green and friendly, but saves some trees. I think the news is being given away for free online, in exchange for massive advertising and corporations owning them.

The reason I support NPR is because they are not owned by Murdoch and like folks...and I'd be willing to pay for online newspapers if they weren't so corporate, biased and poor journalism.

The reason I don't support NPR is because it is owned by the Government. sorry, just could not help myself.

 

[segedi]

The reason I don't support NPR is because it is owned by the Government.

Not sure if that was supposed to be a joke or not... When I lived in the US, NPR provided very balanced views and very balanced interviews. And as such, I was one of the thousands of private citizens that supported my local station through yearly contributions. And NPR also supports the arts and gives greater exposure to photographers 🙂

 

[Vics]

The reason I don't support NPR is because it is owned by the Government. sorry, just could not help myself.

Not true. http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html#npr

 

[wgerrard]

The reason I don't support NPR is because it is owned by the Government. sorry, just could not help myself.

That's not the case.

 

[Bob Michaels]

The reason I don't support NPR is because it is owned by the Government. sorry, just could not help myself.

WTF????????????????????????????????

You mean all those checks I have been writing all these years to support NPR really were going to the government?

Well, they did allow the government some space to film what what we were told was supposed to be landings on the moon. And, they did let the CIA use their meeting room to plan JFK's assassination.

 

[v_roma]

NPR may have its bias but it's no Fox News.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is not the Government.

That's not to say that NPR journalists aren't without obvious bias, much the same as those at Fox.

I listen to NPR, CNN & Fox News and try to arrive at my own balance incorporating details from each.

What I find particularly sad is that journalism has reverted to standards of a century or more ago when bias and advocacy were not merely just below the surface (as was the case more recently) but now once again are as obvious as the call letters or name of the organization.

This thread (as so many do) has morphed. Bill referenced the work of one photojournalist who still brings a high level of skill in his camera bag. My reference is to two-time Pulitzer winner Larry Price (a daily competitor of mine 33 years ago and a heck of a nice guy) who chose to preserve his standards rather than preserve his job.

That is the rub now in photojournalism. Publications typically don't value good photography, preferring instead to provide reduced quality of their product to their customers with an arrogance of understanding that usually they are the only newspaper in town.

The daily newspaper is a dinosaur and those working for them are destined to the same inevitable future. News will continue to be broadly disseminated, but with less professionalism of quality by smaller entities resembling social media. We are in the age and era of the blog.

 

[wgerrard]

Newspapers are cutting staff across the board, not just photographers. They have lost ad revenue to the web, especially from classifieds.

News outlets serve up pandering junk because they make money doing it. People buy the stuff. That is especially true for American TV. For years, news departments of networks were not expected to turn a profit. Now, they are. They're just another revenue producer, like sports and sit coms.

So many people worry about government control of this or that, but are indifferent to autocratic control of our media, and other parts of our lives, by a few rich corporations. Concentrations of wealth and power are dangerous, in government and in the private sector.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

When we lose the professional journalists and PJ's because everything is free, we end up with some kid with a computer and web cam editorializing on world economics.

My concern has always been relying on "news" from folks who are accountable to no one, journalistically or ethically. The ethical consequences of this gradual killing off of "professionals" is a big concern to me.

 

[wgerrard]

Pickett, I'm dismayed that so many publishers and other media owners seem so fixated finding a way to make money by giving stuff away. Pre-web, they would have laughed at the notion, and rightly so.

Now, they seem to think their market is the same bunch of adolescents who won't pay for music. Maybe it is, considering the number of people who clearly are not prepared to spend even a token amount of money to find out what the hell is going on in their world. The truth is most people would just rather be entertained and have their biases stroked.

I think we are headed for an environment that sees most people ill-informed, usually deliberately, where the 'best' photos are of some celebrity, and with a small minority buying real journalism from a few outlets. That has serious implications for democratic government.

 

[emraphoto]

I quite enjoy 'journalism/editorials' from folks who have zero first hand experience in the regions they are writing about. It was a sad day when it became comedy... But that was long ago. Now it's just funny.

 

[furcafe]

Time's day rate isn't so great nowadays, either.

My local NPR station is constantly trolling for "free" pictures to use on their web site. In years past they paid a day rate similar to Time Mag.

 

[Harry Lime]

The reason I don't support NPR is because it is owned by the Government. sorry, just could not help myself.

How about all the other things the government owns like the military, the roads, national parks, NASA, public works and services etc?

The government does not control the content of NPR. If you are worried about external influence and the news being manipulated, worry about the sponsors and advertisers. One of the biggest reasons why we don't see real news anymore is because advertisers don't want to their ad across the page from pictures of starving children or dead bodies.