Slashdot Mirror
The Demise of the Professional Photojournalist
Dan Gillmor has a piece up on his Center for Citizen Media blog about the coming decline in the venerable professions of photojournalism and videography. It's hard to fault Gillmor's argument that the ubiquity of Net-connected cameras and cell phones will mean that, for breaking news at least, a pro will rarely if ever be the ones who capture the shot or the footage that gets widely published and reprinted. The comments to Gillmor's post are worth reading. One reader pulls out the figure that a billion camera phones will be in use globally by 2008.
I work with dozens of journalists and videojournalists (TV). While yes, some people do send in video news for us to use, most of the time it sucks. Horribly. Probably the largest use of user-contributed content to-date (with success) is CNN's iReport. However, not even all of the iReport stuff is end-user information -- much of it comes from the other newspaper and television stations that work with CNN.
Intelligent people or not, the population does demand a certain amount of traditional news. Some things can easily be covered in the future by freelancers or bloggers (like concerts and local events), but a blogger has nothing riding on being wrong. Journalists, at least, have their credibility--and whole career--on the line with big stories. If they are grossly factually incorrect, their career (at least in the big, large-pay markets) will be completely destroyed.
What does a freelancer or blogger have to lose? Nothing. A blogger "journalist" can simply get a new domain and start all over again, possibly using their old content to backdate content to make themselves look established as their new identity.
Sure, a journalist can simply change markets to escape criticism, but they can't change their name. What they say and what they do follows them forever.
While traditional mediums may be on the slow decline (Newspaper and local television), that doesn't indicate that they will become useless. Do you really trust these up-and-coming "journalists" to, say, explain to your grandmother why her voting location changed? Which "journalist" would she believe? They could all be wrong, for all she knows.
Most people will come to realize that non-professionals can hold a much stronger, and covert, bias than traditional journalists could ever hope to hold.
Every time I see an amateur video on the news I think "that's interesting, but it's too bad they didn't get a professional cameraman there in time."
Camera phones... shudder.
I was actually surprised by the level of relationship most people have with cameras once I started paying attention. Even most of my friends, who aren't technically challenged, seem to have little understanding of the cameras or principles of photography. I don't consider myself a very good photographer and don't even use a DSLR, but this seems like basic stuff.
For example, one guy was using the built-in flash on an object waaay beyond the range, and then was surprised that the photo was waaay underexposed. Another one was trying to take a picture of the night city through the window, again with the flash. Yet another tried to convince me that pre-focusing on the spot I expected the subject to appear would result in more lag and blur, even though the camera obviously didn't have enough time to properly autofocus.
This is generally my approach for taking pictures that I intend to have placed in the newspaper. I go where news is going to happen then I take several hundred (or at least it seems that way). After I have done this I will, generally, have one or two that are worth submiting. I can assure you that these are not taken with a phone camera.
As far as the issue of accuracy and creditibility of blogs, the answer I give my students is simple. Tell the truth of what you see and only what you see. If your are expressing what you feel then be sure to state that it is what you feel.
If you get something wrong in your blog it is much easer to deal with than it is in print; no, you dont shut down the blog and start a new one, or just hope that no one notices. You can appologize and make a correction (not an edit!). This does nothing but to enhanse your creditibility.
I have to admit that my current blog is more of a travelog and is filled with a lot of snapshots . I also have to eventually move it to a proper account. www.myspace.com/robert_crawford However, it does express my observations (mostly, this one is just keeping family and friends up to date with my life, as are most blogs). In the interests of accuracy, I will also state that I teach english, philosophy, and logic (a subset of philosophy), not journalism.
Yep, the most important photographs of the 20th century tankman,Iwo Jima,Hindenburg, etc were all taken by professional photographers despite the near ubiquitous access to cameras, especially during the second half of the century when mass production made them so cheap they literally were available in the checkout lane alongside gum and candy. I don't think that more access to crap is going to make people stop wanting something high quality. Heck look at porn on the net, there's tons of it available for free yet I don't see Vivid et al going out of business.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
This is like saying that the availability of the Internet is going to destroy all fine literature. Professional, high-quality work is always in demand. Consumers will just have more choice and photojournalists will have to differentiate themselves with higher quality.
Currently hooked on AMP
Ubiquitous cell phone cams does not equal the demise of the professional photojournalism.
Yes, a lot of photos are taken by people with cell phones when there is no photojournalist in site. Before cellphone cams became wide spread, those events simply wouldn't have been photographed. So cell phone cams are not exactly invading a marketspace traditionally dominated by professional photojournalists - they are invading a marketspace that has traditionally been vacant - thus I claim photojournalists are not competing with cell cam users.
Photojournalists are out there, right now, shooting the same type of events they've always shot. They'll continue to do so.
And show me a cell phone cam photo and a photo shot by a professional photojournalist from the same event, and I'll choose the photojournalist's shot 999 times out of 1000. Its not because his camera is better (some day, cell phone cams might catch up, who knows?). Its the photographer. There's a reason why these people are pro's and make their living doing it - photographic talent. Joe Schmoe with his cell phone would have to be extremily lucky to stumble into a better picture than the pro is going to take.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
The factors involved seem to be being present when a photo opportunity happens, recognizing a photo opportunity, having a half-decent camera, and having the skill to produce a well composed photograph (instead of a blurry mess with half a thumb).
Being present is somewhat a matter of luck. However, photojournalists (like other journalists) spend more time than most people in many areas where "newsworthy" (IE: "I can turn that into a story!") events are more frequent. This improves their chances.
Recognizing a photo opportunity is a learned skill. Unsubtle ones like the collapse of the World Trade Center can be recognized by any moron with a pulse and an IQ higher than room temperature. However, such moments may be hard to pick out of the crowd of moments around us, as the current Wikipedia example image for Eisenstaedt suggests. The kiss is one amoung millions, probably even millions that day; but capturing it has elevated it. Would you have stopped and taken the shot, or merely smiled kindly at the happy couple and wandered on past? (I don't think "Get a room!" was a current expression at the time; anyone know?)
The ubiquity of cameras has reduced the importance of merely having a camera on the scene. However, all cameras are not created equal. No matter how lucky you are, you won't get the same quality shots with a keychain toy as with a fully kitted Hasselblad. Professionals put serious money into having the best gear, since they can get a return on the investment (and often a tax write-off). The barrier isn't absolute, since the availability of quality and affordable digital camera gear has gone up over the last couple years; there's a lot of "prosumer" grade cameras about. However, the ubiquitous cell phone camera is a lot closer to my first example for quality.
The last element is skill. With the cost of "developing" digital shots so low, it's a lot cheaper to develop the skill of photo composition than it used to be. However, since developing such skill also takes effort, most people still use a RFC 2795-styled approach, taking shots and picking the best afterwards. While a professional does this too, the expert knowlege they possess means they have a higher starting point, and an easier time finding that one utterly outstanding shot.
As Heinlein observed in Have Spacesuit, Will Travel, "There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe." I wouldn't be too shocked if an "amateur" ended up with a Pulitzer within the next 20 years, but I don't expect the professional photojournalists to die out any time soon.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.