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.
“We are buried beneath the weight of information, which is being confused with knowledge; quantity is being confused with abundance and wealth with happiness.
We are monkeys with money and guns.”
― Tom Waits
... 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.
Last edited by Tom1956; 02-26-2014 at 04:58 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Originally Posted by MattKing
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