“The profession of ‘photojournalist’ no longer exists”
Written by David WhiteGood piece by some market stall holder called Neil Burgess over on the EPUK site.
Honesty, that’s what we like here at the duck. Doesn’t get much more honest than that piece.
And a response here from Sojournposse:
“Very poignant piece. However we are happy to disagree with Burgess on this topic. Our resident digital anthropologist and editor at Sojournposse thinks the “image” people will lead journalism once again, in a completely new way. This is partly because of the emergence of new multi-media/mobile news gatherers in the media. Read our review on “The Role of Mobile in News Gathering, Journalism and the Consumption of News” talk held at The Frontline Club here http://www.sojournposse.com/?p=2542”
And a great comment from Lisa Hogben:
I am now reposting what I wrote over on the lightstalkers site ‘cos well I really think that perhaps Neil Burgess is right in one way but completely too much of an old and cynical pressie in another! “I have to say that TIME has tried to reinvent itself but it is not necessarily without fault. They still come under the pressure of financial stake holders. Its unfortunate but what seems to have happened so much recently is that many of the Editors who should have had more of a role in the 21st century genesis of all these titles have been too scared to publish and be damned and have crumbled under the weight of boards that have no idea about the news industry. Though I also believe that Nathan with The Collective, John Horniblow with Photojournale and them over at duckrabbitt, VII Mag, 100eyes, GAIA and Burn all have their place in the new world of photojournalism. And perhaps what we need to do is redefine ourselves. I am not a spring chicken anymore but I believe visual journalist is a more fitting title. To meet the needs of a changing delivery system and MAKE STORIES MORE RELEVANT then we have to be leaner and more interesting. The ipad I believe is going to revolutionise the way the news world works. You can actually read in depth reporting on it because its physically easier to do so than with a tiny device like the iphone or even with the kind of display on a computer. It looks like Nathan may have got the delivery design absolutely spot on because it seems (and I haven’t been able to experience it first hand) like a very simple way to look at stuff. Like a book. Or an old style paper mag. I think the future is more exciting because once people actually organise the way something is delivered then well it can be a user pays kind of medium and the emphasis is then on the content providers (ie US) to produce content that can garner an audience. Things like a photo of a celebrity don’t really cut it on an ipad. They just aren’t interesting enough really. You have to be a bit more complex in lots of ways to keep people there at your site otherwise its very simple to go else where. Not many people are actually too interested in doing their own marketing, they are still relying on the model of the big boss employing the star photographer. Well now its time to move along Jimmy Olsen! I believe our future lies with the collective influence we have, its all the links to blogs and then the advertisers pick up on it and then you can actually pay for some of this stuff to go out and do stories. Of course the most innovative and best will always get to the top, its the way of the world. So yes I agree maybe it is time to call ‘classic photojournalism’ dead. But maybe we are now present at the birth of its grandchild… ‘visualjournalism’”
Discussion (14 Comments)
Very poignant piece. However we are happy to disagree with Burgess on this topic. Our resident digital anthropologist and editor at Sojournposse thinks the “image” people will lead journalism once again, in a completely new way. This is partly because of the emergence of new multi-media/mobile news gatherers in the media. Read our review on “The Role of Mobile in News Gathering, Journalism and the Consumption of News” talk held at The Frontline Club here http://www.sojournposse.com/?p=2542
The label ‘photojournalist’, and the social hierarchies and relevant divisions of labour attached to that job title might change. But the image people will take over. The job title might not necessarily be ‘photojournalist’, though. See http://www.sojournposse.com/?p=1591 (“The image is no lesser than the text”).
There will always be those who’ll continue to produce brilliant photo essays. but… No question about it- this parrot’s long departed, gone down the same road as your local milk man. And Burgess certainly has the props to know of what he speaks. Once the dust settles, multi-media in whatever form it ultimately takes (probably several as the very name implies) may fill the void, but it will be another horse altogether- who will it serve and who (how many) will it employ?
Guess I’m gonna have a lot of time on my hands.
God no Michael, just think about how your patient list will expand.
Burgess is right in announcing that ‘photojournalism’ (a hideous word with hideous connotations) is dead, but he’d emerge with a lot more credit if he acknowledged the role that photographers and their agents played in devaluing their work. It’s fair enough that he points out that ‘it is an active decision that has been taken by the managing editors who believe that photojournalism is not valued, it can be got for free’, but it ignores the fact that this was only possible because photographers/agents colluded in the process.
It’s too late to reverse things now, and all the ‘multimedia’ voodoo in the world isn’t going to alter this. Today’s multimedia visionary is tomorrow’s minimum wage drone, it’s simple supply and demand.
Happy days Andrew, happy days 🙂
Happiness goes with the turf…
I am now reposting what I wrote over on the lightstalkers site ‘cos well I really think that perhaps Neil Burgess is right in one way but completely too much of an old and cynical pressie in another!
“I have to say that TIME has tried to reinvent itself but it is not necessarily without fault. They still come under the pressure of financial stake holders. Its unfortunate but what seems to have happened so much recently is that many of the Editors who should have had more of a role in the 21st century genesis of all these titles have been too scared to publish and be damned and have crumbled under the weight of boards that have no idea about the news industry.
Though I also believe that Nathan with The Collective, John Horniblow with Photojournale and them over at duckrabbitt, VII Mag, 100eyes, GAIA and Burn all have their place in the new world of photojournalism.
And perhaps what we need to do is redefine ourselves. I am not a spring chicken anymore but I believe visual journalist is a more fitting title. To meet the needs of a changing delivery system and MAKE STORIES MORE RELEVANT then we have to be leaner and more interesting.
The ipad I believe is going to revolutionise the way the news world works. You can actually read in depth reporting on it because its physically easier to do so than with a tiny device like the iphone or even with the kind of display on a computer. It looks like Nathan may have got the delivery design absolutely spot on because it seems (and I haven’t been able to experience it first hand) like a very simple way to look at stuff. Like a book. Or an old style paper mag.
I think the future is more exciting because once people actually organise the way something is delivered then well it can be a user pays kind of medium and the emphasis is then on the content providers (ie US) to produce content that can garner an audience. Things like a photo of a celebrity don’t really cut it on an ipad. They just aren’t interesting enough really. You have to be a bit more complex in lots of ways to keep people there at your site otherwise its very simple to go else where.
Not many people are actually too interested in doing their own marketing, they are still relying on the model of the big boss employing the star photographer.
Well now its time to move along Jimmy Olsen!
I believe our future lies with the collective influence we have, its all the links to blogs and then the advertisers pick up on it and then you can actually pay for some of this stuff to go out and do stories. Of course the most innovative and best will always get to the top, its the way of the world.
So yes I agree maybe it is time to call ‘classic photojournalism’ dead.
But maybe we are now present at the birth of its grandchild… ‘visualjournalism’”
Lisa, I’m a bit confused by the notion that Time has tried to reinvent itself. All I can see is a clumsy attempt at an iPad edition undermined by an ongoing row with Apple, and a background of annual cutbacks and redundancies. Over the past few years they’ve eliminated their Australian outpost, eviscerated their European and Asian offices, and (just like Newsweek) forced out every single one of their senior photo editors. Sure, some of the photo staff have been replaced with a mix of up-titled interns and new lower paid and more obedient hires from the NY Times, but everything that was positive about the place from a photographer’s perspective has gone. For all its faults, Time had arguably the most supportive photo team in the business: the pay hadn’t gone up for twenty years but they had an open door policy (they’d meet any photographer who contacted them); they genuinely cared about the well-being of the people they assigned (I know one former photo editor who was prepared to use her own AmEx card to pay for medical treatment for an injured photographer when the company was dragging its feet); and they fought long and hard against visually illiterate guys like Rick Stengel and Mike Elliott to ensure that photographs were used with respect. Now, as the magazine continues its long slow descent to closure or sale, it’s an utterly dismal place – as Burgess acknowledged, even the masthead photographers are barely used.
I don’t think the game is up for talented photographers. If they’re good enough (and many aren’t) they’ll find ways to mix editorial with commercial (and I’m including NGOs in this category) and do OK, but I think it’s time that the notion of the full-time freelance ‘photojournalist’ was laid to rest. Instead of rebranding as ‘multimedia journalists’ or ‘visual journalists’ why not just revert to the word ‘photographer’? If your work is good enough nobody will be looking at the title on your business card.
Makes total sense
Hi Andrew, look I agree with everything you said about what has happened at TIME. Shit I should know what happened in Australia, I was at last drinks when they called it here! But they did try to drag themselves into the 21st century with their app which was around a while before anyone else, which was the point I referred to in saying they did try re-invention. Banging on about how fucked up the people that run this industry are and what bad decisions they have made is simply not helping anyone anymore is my greater point. And whats about some of our collectives scooping up some of the great photo editors that TIME has ‘let go’ to work for us in our various endeavours? My beautiful friend Michelle Turscanyi who worked on TIME in Oz would no doubt be delighted to work with some quality production or collective for the same money as we get in startup. I guess thats it, why should she be excluded as a ‘visual content provider’ because she was on the other side of the desk? She is freelancing too now so I know the sorts of skills she learnt on TIME would absolutely be a great thing to include in our futures. Like I said ‘Move along Jimmy Olsen’ Let swap the model and lets us be the bosses!
Lisa, mindlessly whining about the state of the industry is, I agree, futile, but sadly far too many people in our profession still don’t understand the basic principles of what’s gone wrong. And until they do there’s still going to be a few people justifiably “banging on” at them, because their ongoing stupidity continues to impact upon all of us.
As for Michelle being excluded from our future endeavours because she comes from the wrong side of the desk, has anybody proposed that? I don’t think so. I’m actually married to a recently “restructured” (the editorial equivalent of “collateral damage”) Time photo editor, so I’m well aware of the skills and personal qualities they have. The only bar to these people now collaborating with the photographers they’ve assigned over the years is a financial one – can a group of photographers work for rates that are actually lower than they were 20 years ago and still pay a viable salary to office staff? It’s frighteningly difficult, as even an agency as strong as Oeil Public discovered:
http://www.oeilpublic.com/newsletter.php
Agree with Lisa Hogben, “Not many people are actually too interested in doing their own marketing, they are still relying on the model of the big boss employing the star photographer.” We see photographers as direct producers of their own contents in very near future, if not already, with deeper understanding of technology. Photography will have its second renaissance.