End of newspaper photographers?
Alan Mutter questions the future of newspaper photographers, pointing out how amateurs are already producing work nearly as good and as fast in some cases.
Because citizen shooters vastly outnumber professional journalists – and they're increasingly aware of how to get their work published – it stands to reason that they will begin scooping the pros on more and more breaking news, thus rendering staff photographers substantially superfluous. Case in point:Having joined the crowds in San Francisco who spent Super Bowl Sunday watching the Queen Mary 2 nose under the Golden Gate Bridge, I hastened home to compare the coverage at Flikr.Com with that of the San Francisco Chronicle.
Although the Chronicle had several fine photographers stationed at key vantage points to record the arrival of the largest ship ever to enter San Francsico Bay, their shots were no better – and posted no more rapidly – than those taken by the Flikr clickers. See the two examples below.
Feb 25, 2007 | E-MAIL | SAVE | PRINT
| PERMALINK
| DISCUSS(6)
Tags:
newspapers
Tags:
User-generated content
Tags:
User-generated content
Discussion
6 comments about 'End of newspaper photographers?'Gee, maybe newspaper photographers will need to pick up a new skill, like video...
Posted by Ryan at February 25, 2007 6:23 PM
Saying we no longer need photojournalists is like saying we no longer need reporters or skilled writers because many of our readers can type. Modern digital cameras make it possible for average people to take good pictures in many situations, just like bloggers have ended the professional journalists' lock on mass publication. We should view these technological changes as opportunities rather than threats. Community publishing tools will free professional reporters of a lot of grunt work, so they'll need to focus on the accountability journalism society needs so badly. And if amateurs can cover easy stuff like a beautiful ship sailing under a beautiful bridge, professional photojournalists can devote more attention to telling complex, gritty visual stories -- in stills and video -- that amateurs can't touch. As a managing editor, I know the value of a skilled photojournalist.
Posted by Anonymous at February 25, 2007 6:57 PM
Except ... the SF Chron photo shown here looks much better, to me at least, than the flickr comparison. The composition's better, using the sweep of the bridge to draw the eye; there's more context, making it easier to see the relative sizes. It's possible for anyone to just happen to be in the right spot at the right time. It's not as easy to take a great photo.
Posted by Anonymous at February 26, 2007 3:53 PM
The Chron photo is much better. The Flickr photo is fine -- just what you'd expect from a point-n-shooter. I had to laugh at the comment about journalists doing gritty complex stories. Like covering Anna Nicole and B. Spears. How about just admitting that journalism itself is just about dead.
Posted by John at February 28, 2007 5:25 PM
What I wonder is if trash journalism is really the one that's on the way out. It seems that those that focus on real news will always have a following, albeit smaller that they'd like, because getting high quality news is difficult to do and requires pros. But those that focus on pop stuff only will suffer because their journalistic integrity was lost long ago and narrow-topic blogs and sites that offer innuendo, gotcha photos and unsubstantiated "first hand" accounts by unpaid regular folks will likely attract a growing following because they are focused and tend to be juicier.
Posted by David at March 1, 2007 12:08 PM
Sorry. I like the flickr photo better. Also, I wouldn't be so quick to label all flickr members amateurs. A number of the members are pro photographers, including freelance photojournalists, trying to garner more interest in their work.
Posted by deb at March 2, 2007 5:11 PM
Post a comment
Site Map
