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.
One might make an argument for this, but I am not quite so sure this is the "demise of the professional photojournalist" for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the ability to effectively communicate. Sure a picture can tell a thousand words, but that photograph needs to be placed in context. I take lots of photos that describe what I see, do and where I go, but I would never think of myself as a professional journalist. These images for me are a means to communicate and keep in touch with family and friends (a blog, right?), not to disseminate the news to the rest of the world. The fact that sometimes images from my site do resonate with news agencies/institutions or individuals around the world is cool, but it is a rarity that I get requests for re-publication (one every three months or so) and it is not how I make my living.
Additionally, there is also the issue of ethics that most professional publications usually get right, but there are the admitted occasional screw-ups. Usually however, there are issues of image/video provenance to deal with that may not always reflect reality ("I found it on the Internets, so it must be true!") that editorial boards put through a vetting process to filter out much of the fakery/deceipt.
The Internet has enabled the ability to democratically (small "d") reach huge masses of people with relatively few resources and I expect that we will see more citizen reporting as the years go on. It may in some cases also challenge the mainstream media for particular stories, but the reality is that most folks have other jobs/things that keep them busy and they do not have the resources or time to become professional journalists. When they do obtain the appropriate resources/time/credibility, they have just crossed over into the world of the professional journalist.
Technology will cause things to change and serve as a destabilizing influence for many established institutions, but I think we will always have and pay people who relate the news to us, bring us the wider world and tell stories. This will become especially more important as increasing percentages of societies become more specialized and fragment their time into narrowly defined regions of interest/study.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Failed photographers who just so happen to own a vest with lots of pockets. Not so easy now, is it? How 'bout a little respect.
A good headline like this should always be followed with a call for new legislation. We need to protect the industry. Perhaps we could ban trafficking in illicit news-related photographs, or the use of technologies that allow unrestricted sharing of such photographs on the internet.
On the other hand, the few photojournalists I know can usually take vastly better pictures of a newsworthy event with a disposable camera than I can with a phone/camera of any kind. Maybe talent will save the industry instead.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
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.
have powerful enough software to add their own fake smoke into the scene? That is the mark of the professional journalist :P
Monstar L
Mmm...
1 billion poorly lit, poorly framed, grainy images from cameras where people believed mega pixels === quality.
How did we ever live with slightly less timely clear images that were composed well?!
Besides, it's challenging enough to get alleged photo professionals whose careers depend on it not to add smoke to Lebanese buildings. How much is your reputation as a news agency going to be worth after your fiftieth photoshopping scandal because no on has a career to put in jeopardy but their odds of selling the single shot go up massively if it's more impressive?
Sure, some of the less valid photographers will face competition and things may get a little tighter for the great ones - but there'll always be a need for reliable quality backed by a scandal proof reputation.
I don't think that journalism is the only profession that has been radically changed by the introduction of the Internet as a distribution medium. The same argument about distribution being within the reach of the unwashed masses still applies to pretty much anything that involves distributing some kind of content to an end-user. We were worried about indie artists obsoleting the Big Music Industry, amateur filmmakers taking money away from Hollywood, traditional news sources becoming obsolete, FOSS obsoleting commercial software development. And yet, none of this has happened.
To some degree, the work of amateurs has been more widely viewed and accepted due to things like blogging, YouTube, online photo galleries and more. And FOSS is a serious competitor for all kinds of business applications. In the end, however, there's a few things that keep the pros in business, and likely will continue to do so. Professional content creators (just to keep things generic) have experience, reputation and capital. Most amateurs are lacking in at least one of those areas. In the rare and brilliant case where an amateur lacks none of the above, they remain an amateur because they've chosen to commit the bulk of their time to some other profession.
Only when experience, reputation and capital have nothing to do with successfully creating unique and interesting content do I see the pro's job in danger. The Internet has enabled more amateurs by reducing the capital required to enter the market, allowing for one to gain reputation in a myriad of online communities, and experience by contributing freely and easily to the public domain. All of this free content is simply competition for the pros, who are pros (presumably) because they are one of the best. Conclusion: The Internet does enable amateur content creators to succeed, but the pros will continue to succeed by improving the quality of their work.
mandelbr0t
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
Good news photogs are still going to get the shots they've always been there for. They also get access to places and events that other people don't get access to. Being part of the press corps does give you that chance to capture Gerald Ford tripping down the stairs, or Bill Clinton ginning up some Oscar-worthy tears, etc. But to the extent that a lot people are more interested in stuff that happens to normal people, even cheesy low-res MPGs are more relevent because they exist.
The other thing, here, is the presence of more enthusiasts' cameras in and around events/scenes that would normally never rate the presence of a professional. Not the county fair, etc., but oddball sports/leagues, minor-league political events, that sort of thing. I've found that some of my own special-interest events (outdoorsy stuff among the bird dog crowd) has been bone dry of any media coverage that doesn't come from within. Um, except when the vice president accidentally peppers a lawyer while quail hunting - then all the sudden everyone wants images from that world... for exactly a week, anyway.
But when I shoot stuff at an event, there can be twenty other people there with their cell-phone-cams, and it's the nerd with the heavy duty DSLR that produces the images people actually want. Most folks simply won't carry around enough glass to produce the sort of images that a pro or an insane amateur can produce, since it's just too inconvenient. Doesn't matter how many pixels a cell phone's sensor can pack in - the laws of physics are still in the way of those tiny lenses producing really good workable images, especially of active subjects in mediocre light.
I've also found that carrying a macho camera and strobes gets you in places. It's sort of like all of those times that I used a mic cable and got around college bar cover charges saying, "I'm with the band."
But the sheer number of images produced by all of those portables (say, the stuff from the Madrid train bombings) will certainly result in lots of web/broadcast coverage that an assigned pro would never produce. But what a professional (with his/her practiced eye, journalistic sensibilities, better gear, and credentialed access) can produce will never be replaced by the ubiquitous phone-cam. These things are complimentary, not mutually exclusive. But look at how the Michael Richards video clip circulated... that stuff will certainly eclipse other material's airtime when it's compelling enough.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Go pick up a copy of your local newspaper. Or the USA Today. Look at the images that accompany the stories. Now see how many of them are "news as it happens" images, besides planned events like sports or political functions. Very, very few. Pictures of traumatic events, captured as they happen, make up about 1% of a professional photojournalist does. Most of it is either:
These are the things photojournalists actually do, none of which are going to be replaced by random amateurs with point and shoot cameras. So, according to the author, photojournalists are going to be put out of a job by people doing something that photojournalists don't actually do. What's next? Are vending machines going to put gourmet chefs out of business? They're everywhere, and get you fed for a lot less!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Visual Studio express free downloads from MS has not resulted in management writing their own code
Hammers & paint @ home depot has not caused massive layoffs of contractors
Everyone has a pocketknife but surgeons are still employed.
Many many crappy cameras in the wild does not mean that people will start liking crappy pictures
I like nice pictures. Blogging hasn't (yet) killed journalism/professional writing. I expect photogs will survive.
Some photographers are famous and produce pictures that form the rememberance of our times or even lead to change by altering public opinion. I can think of three pictures that went a long way to souring the public on our wars in Viet Nam and Cambodia.
t ml "The 12 or 14 negatives on that single roll of film, culminating in the moment of death for a Viet Cong, propelled Eddie Adams into lifelong fame. The photo of the execution at the hands of Vietnam's police chief, Lt. Colonel Nguyen Ngoc Loan, at noon on Feb. 1, 1968 has reached beyond the history of the Indochina War - it stands today for the brutality of our last century."
_ Ph%C3%BAc ". Associated Press photographer Nick Út earned a Pulitzer Prize for the photograph."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings "John Filo's Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of Mary Ann Vecchio, a fourteen year-old runaway, kneeling over the dead or dying body of Jeffrey Miller, shot in the mouth by an unknown Ohio National Guardsman."
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0410/faas.h
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Th%E1%BB%8B_Kim
As far as I know, these photographs were the high point of otherwise unremarkable careers. By luck, the photographer was in the right place at the right time.
On the other hand, through skill, there were photographers who always managed to be in the right place at the right time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Eisenstaedt There will always be jobs for photographers like him no matter how many cell phone cameras there are.
Take a look at graphic design. I think it's a pretty good parallel to what's happening in photography (my SO is a graphic designer, so I have some insight into this).
There used to be a lot of graphic designers and it used to be that a lot of them made it their bread-and-butter business to do restaurant menus, business cards, leaflets - any kind of small scale, frequently revised job like that. It wasn't glamorous, but it paid the bills between the big jobs.
Then DTP happened. And when people could start churning out the simple stuff on their own, that marked gradually dried up. The truth is, while a menu for a neighbourhood joint designed and set by the owner and cranked out on a badly trimmed Kinko's machine is clearly inferior to what a professional will do, it is good enough. The price premium a professional will charge (and has to, to stay in business) just isn't worth it, no matter how much better the results.
For a lot of graphic design like that, the cost of entry - and the baseline quality you get - for interested amateurs is compelling enough that there is no price point at which you can make a living churning out the stuff anymore. The market for "pro" work has shrunk substantially even as the total amount of work has increased. The high-end jobs are still there, naturally, but those were a pretty small proportion of the whole job market.
I suspect it is the case with stock photography and some news and feature photography as well. There's enough people doing decent enough work and selling it through cheap stock agencies - or licensing it completely for free, just for bragging rights - that the bottom will fall out of those markets as well. Just as for graphic design, the high-end stuff will still be there of course - and is arguably even more important than before - but not that many people will be able to make a living on doing it. The top, the cream of the crop, will be just fine. The journeyman base, however, will probably not be very large anymore.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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.
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.
So, let's give million monkeys million cameras and wait when they produce something like this.
The web caters to people that think "everyman should be able to do this", even when they can't. So, "citizen journalists" will eventually overwhelm paid profressionals just because people have no way to determine the difference.
It all comes down to what are people looking for. Quality? Or just quantity. Or just a low price? A newspaper or web news site can "afford" far more when publishing freely contributed content vs. professional content they have to pay for. So, we're more likely to see free stuff. Not only that, but the difference between professional and amateur may not mean much for tiny, cropped down images on a web site.
The other thing the web can't stand is the idea that material isn't being published because it isn't "appropriate". Would a newspaper or TV news program show a picture of a person "believed to be a rapist?" However, if someone has a cell phone camera picture of someone leaving the scene of a rape, you can bet some web site will put it up with the caption "He did it!!!!" What does this do to the idea of a fair trial?
The idea of the "citizen journalist" pushes this over to a distributed model. Authority is a difficult problem in distributed systems and the "democratic" nature of the web seems to abhore the idea of any authority at all. This makes it very difficult to tell if you are looking at a clever fake or the truth. Sure, you might get different web sites with different material. OK, what is truth? Majority wins? Or is there something else that we can judge this stuff by? Right now, I would say it is unlikely there will be a standard and people will be left on their own. Truth could be a very slippery concept.