Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Journalism and Documentary' started by Mainecoonmaniac, Jan 27, 2014.
Out of the about 47 academies that train photographers on academic level in applied photography in Germany 2 offer explicitely a study of photojournalism.
Sad, but it's the way of the world... The journalists who aren't photographers will probably just use their phones to take pictures, the sad part is, the phone I have could easily print double the size of a full page image on a news paper...
Kind of like when photojournalists switched from graflex to 35mm, they no longer needed big negs to get the detail...
I don't think of course that the quality of a train photographer could compare to someone wielding a cell phone, but the fact of the matter is that most of the images in newspapers aren't exactly artistically taken THESE DAYS. Heck, my local paper right now which I know has a real photographer on staff, looks like it was taken by a 14-year-old with a cell phone anyway.
It's the narrative.
Actually, I think it's not just the photo variety of journalism that's in decline!
I give this newspaper management great credit. Conventional wisdom would say that, when your product is increasing viewed by consumers as less valuable (as evidenced by subscriptions), you reduce the price and add value. However newspaper management isn't constrained by this conventional wisdom. They're going to provide less and less value at increasing cost.
In other words, when you find yourself in a hole, dig faster.
Hope it works for them.
We have two local TV stations that are owned by Nexstar Broadcasting they will use the same journalism for both channels on the same story. What little I have found out there are no high pay jobs. The local paper is just hanging on
I've always thought the same thing. Never saw any bunch where the expression "they do it to themselves" is more true.
There is more journalistic photography than ever. People just aren't getting paid to do it. And the output venue just isn't a newspaper very often anymore.
There are long discussions going on how newspapers have to evolve to survive. In all those discussions I never heard anything about photography.
Whenever there was reference to what a reader seeks it was about intriguing writing. Not about intriguing photography.
How high, or how low, is photography ranked on the wishlist of the reader of the newspaper to come?
Believe it or not, my local JC, Sacramento City College where I used to teach is starting a photojournalism program. I was shocked when I former colleague told me. I think it's a waste of money and a total disservice to unsuspecting students that think they're going to get a PJ job when they graduate.
... but that's always been the case with most things taught in an academic college settings. You get your just get your first degree in some
kind of nonsense, then either study something more marketable in grad school or simply enter the school of hard knocks in the real world.
There is a valid argument for a well-rounded education, but that should not be confused with earning a living.
It's a celebrity driven media world these days. Newspaper picturedesks (especially the tabloids) don't see any value in a picture unless it contains an "A" list celebrity.
Photojournalism is no longer a viable way to make a living, you rarely see it in newspapers anymore, only on walls at an exhibition. Freelances increasingly find no-one wants to pay them for their pictures .....cameraphone users are sending in stuff for free, and editors can get free pictures off Facebook.
The pendulum always swings in both directions. I too lament the decline of photojournalism. But once it's almost gone, I think people will miss it and bring it back.
Few things carry the same power as a reportage by a dedicated photojournalist.
It's never been the easy route to riches, but I think it's in human nature to get out there and show the truth.
Speaking as a person with no cable or satellite, and never having watched any of the so-called news outlets, I post this link so as to make my point that it is the agenda that runs off the newspaper readers, not necessarily so much that newspapers and magazines are so antiquated as to lose readership on that count. I was looking for actual percentage ratings, but had to settle on this link that bears out the obvious. As long as the media pushes the tired, shopworn, and annoying narrative, they do it to themselves.
And please--I only report the facts, don't kill the messenger. Thanks.
It isn't that Fox News appeals to those who don't like newspapers.
It is that Fox News appeals to those who cannot read the newspapers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The problem is that the 24/7 news outlets are fighting for readers/viewers (ratings), and in the world of the web, these are 'easy numbers' to verify (page hits etc.). They're happy to show photos/video with 'Unverified footage' tags to achieve the ratings they want. What they really mean is - we're happy to show this because it's dramatic, we don't really know (and probably don't really care) who/when/where it was filmed, what their motives may be - but with a suitable 'breaking news' caption it becomes 'the truth'.
Media outlets are getting content from the 'audience' because technology makes it possible, some of this is interesting/news-worthy content 'in the thick' of the action, the rest is convenient/cheap/supposedly-dramatic.
I'm annoyed mostly by 'Breaking News' tags hours after a story broke and after it has fizzled out as a 'no-story' - "Breaking news, hours ago something looked like it was happening but it turned out not to be interesting but we still have what might have been dramatic coverage had everything gone badly wrong from our news helicopter (that costs a fortune) so we have to re-cycle this footage as much as possible to justify the cost - or that we have 'exclusive' coverage of a no-story that none of our competitors happen to have and we're going to milk it for as long as we can".
It's the in-depth story that suffers, it's not instantly newsworthy and unless it includes a celeb, few people will be interested.
Instead of reducng amount and quality in times of sinking sales, wouldn't just cranking up quality and more personalized offers be an outcome?
A way much discussed over here.
Not to be too blase about it but from what I have seen, newspapers really dont give a sh!t about the photos they print.
Or the news in most cases.
Sent from Tap-a-talk
That's an ignorant and insulting comment.
Lots of our newspapers are free now.
But lots of people spend time on trains bus and coffee shops - using a smart phone for surfing the web, games e-books and e- newspapers or even APUG...
My hot news friends are frequently preempted by smart phone pictures or video cause they are on the news editors desk first.
You don't need a 4x5, Leica M3, or VR DSLR for hot news being there and not doing a selfie is sufficient.
Fox appeals to me and I can, and do, read newspapers/news-websites in four languages besides English. I still have important copies of Pravda and Izvestiya from the 1960's at home that I've saved (in case you're too young, those papers were the official newspapers of the Soviet Union).
It's common to portray those who you disagree with as stupid or uneducated, because if you were to consider them as intelligent, you may have to reconsider your beliefs.
From the perspective of journalism, Fox covers both national and international news stories that you won't see covered by CNN or MSNBC (or rarely covered). Yes, they have their opinion-based programs on in the evening. but their news reporting is well done.
Photojournalism may be not what it was but it is far from dead. The Daily Mail online (UK) is hardly the last bastion of "real" photojournalism but look what story is currently the front page splash (15/08/14) -
Front page link (will change!):
Link to the story page:
It may not be a Life article but is it not photojournalism?
Sorry folks about the Fox News comment. It was a long time ago, and I was being especially mischievous in my "poking the bear" response to some of Tom1956's more outrageous comments in this and many other threads. I ought to have held back. Tom isn't allowed to post here anymore, so he can't really participate in this revived thread.
I'm not fond of a lot of material I see on Fox News, but I don't really believe that most of its viewers are any more, or any less literate on average than the regular viewers of other "news" sources.