Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,002   Posts: 1,524,426   Online: 1042
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Here's the real point of it: If the newspaper wants to bypass a good photo, then so be it! Somebody else gets the scoop, somebody else gets the attention. That's the reality of the marketplace. And it's just one paper, not a collective. The editors want to make that choice, fine. Read a different paper.

    A while back, one of the New York papers decided that they wouldn't cover a certain popular celebrity tragedy magnet for two weeks. Coincidentally, there wasn't any news about that celebrity for two weeks. There was a hubub when they announced what they had done, cries of censorship, etc. But the world press is pretty free, isn't it? If one paper doesn't cover something, another will.

    The quote might be, "If a newspaper isn't shocking, then it's entertainment for someone." The paper is supposed to full of news, not opinion. The Oregonian is nicknamed by many as, The Oregroanian, because of all the opinion in it. The small Yakima Herald is a paper that will lead the front page with a breaking science story, but you'll be lucky to find it in The Oregonian.

    I think that's the primary reason that many papers have folded. The readership went away because the papers all ran the same sipid story from the wire, and when the Internet came along, what was the point of buying the paper? Everybody ran the same story, even for local news. Newspapers have claimed to feel the presure from radio and television, but radio has been popular in the early 1900s, and TV has been popular since the 1940s. That pressure hasn't been anything new. Newspapers cut back on reporting, so people's eyeballs went someplace more interesting. People will pay for something interesting. But the newspapers really aren't interesting anymore, because they aren't being our interesting insight.

  2. #12
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,047
    Images
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    Here's the real point of it: If the newspaper wants to bypass a good photo, then so be it! Somebody else gets the scoop, somebody else gets the attention. That's the reality of the marketplace. And it's just one paper, not a collective. The editors want to make that choice, fine. Read a different paper.

    A while back, one of the New York papers decided that they wouldn't cover a certain popular celebrity tragedy magnet for two weeks. Coincidentally, there wasn't any news about that celebrity for two weeks. There was a hubub when they announced what they had done, cries of censorship, etc. But the world press is pretty free, isn't it? If one paper doesn't cover something, another will.

    The quote might be, "If a newspaper isn't shocking, then it's entertainment for someone." The paper is supposed to full of news, not opinion. The Oregonian is nicknamed by many as, The Oregroanian, because of all the opinion in it. The small Yakima Herald is a paper that will lead the front page with a breaking science story, but you'll be lucky to find it in The Oregonian.

    I think that's the primary reason that many papers have folded. The readership went away because the papers all ran the same sipid story from the wire, and when the Internet came along, what was the point of buying the paper? Everybody ran the same story, even for local news. Newspapers have claimed to feel the presure from radio and television, but radio has been popular in the early 1900s, and TV has been popular since the 1940s. That pressure hasn't been anything new. Newspapers cut back on reporting, so people's eyeballs went someplace more interesting. People will pay for something interesting. But the newspapers really aren't interesting anymore, because they aren't being our interesting insight.
    I agree with most of that, especially the last paragraph. And as far as the quote, it was certainly about advertising and not entertainment, but damn I can't even find it in google, wish I had taken a picture... but that's kind of a no-go on movie/TV sets.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    918
    If the pictures need to be seen, post them to a blog, bring on the hits. The mass media, competitively driven, will come crawling. Having said that, at the moment, social media will perhaps present him with equal political complications. Then copyright issues... SIGH! Forget it. Let's just watch the Kardashians.

  4. #14
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,047
    Images
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
    If the pictures need to be seen, post them to a blog, bring on the hits. The mass media, competitively driven, will come crawling. Having said that, at the moment, social media will perhaps present him with equal political complications. Then copyright issues... SIGH! Forget it. Let's just watch the Kardashians.
    Well as a photographer you should understand the COST involved in keeping up equipment and your own livelihood, as much as he may love getting the info out there he still needs to eat... the reason to go there is to sell the images...

  5. #15
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Well as a photographer you should understand the COST involved in keeping up equipment and your own livelihood, as much as he may love getting the info out there he still needs to eat... the reason to go there is to sell the images...
    I saw a post on PetaPixel about a Japanese fellow who is a war zone tourist. He just likes going into war zones and photographing them. No money, no fame, just for the thrill. I forget what his day job is. But yeah, he's definitely the exception to the rule.

  6. #16
    ColdEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    714
    Images
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    I saw a post on PetaPixel about a Japanese fellow who is a war zone tourist. He just likes going into war zones and photographing them. No money, no fame, just for the thrill. I forget what his day job is. But yeah, he's definitely the exception to the rule.
    He is a truck driver if I remember correctly. He goes to war zones every year. That's one heck of an adrenaline rush.

  7. #17
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,047
    Images
    223

    Photojournalism in Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    I saw a post on PetaPixel about a Japanese fellow who is a war zone tourist. He just likes going into war zones and photographing them. No money, no fame, just for the thrill. I forget what his day job is. But yeah, he's definitely the exception to the rule.
    Exactly, he has another job...


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    51
    Wow! I had forgotten that I'd made this post here (it's been a crazy few days), but I'm really glad to see the discussion.

    For those in the know: what do you think are the chances of this sort of...embargo for lack of a better word...catching on with other publishers, and possibly artificially reducing/eliminating the market for war-zone photojournalism?

    I tend to agree with others here that, at this point, it's their moral (not to mention economical) prerogative to choose what they will and will not buy, and that there are many more buyers out there. But if this were to catch on among publishers, could it progress to the extent that the media was, in effect, keeping people in the dark about the realities of war? I understand that there are now alternatives, such as blogs, that can be operated by any individual and reach the entire world, but these sources don't have nearly the audience of international major media sources.

  9. #19
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,047
    Images
    223

    Photojournalism in Syria

    Quote Originally Posted by Cold View Post
    Wow! I had forgotten that I'd made this post here (it's been a crazy few days), but I'm really glad to see the discussion.

    For those in the know: what do you think are the chances of this sort of...embargo for lack of a better word...catching on with other publishers, and possibly artificially reducing/eliminating the market for war-zone photojournalism?

    I tend to agree with others here that, at this point, it's their moral (not to mention economical) prerogative to choose what they will and will not buy, and that there are many more buyers out there. But if this were to catch on among publishers, could it progress to the extent that the media was, in effect, keeping people in the dark about the realities of war? I understand that there are now alternatives, such as blogs, that can be operated by any individual and reach the entire world, but these sources don't have nearly the audience of international major media sources.
    I tend to err on the side of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" in that the safety of the photographer is less important than getting news out about suffering people that images might help cause uproar that would lead to a safer life for some of those suffering.

    The photographer knows his choice and knows he is risking his life, that's his choice to make, the people in those regions didn't all choose to be there, And having info, images, story to go with it is critical to getting help to these people in whatever little might come of it.

    So that's my opinion anyway. Censorship for WHATEVER reason is bad IMHO.


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  10. #20
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    One day we'll see cuisine magazines refusing to publish recipes on the moral ground that some people might raise their cholesterol levels by cooking.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin