Comments on: Photojournalism is Dead? Yeah, yeah.

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:59:10 +0000

Neil Burgess’ perspective is correct in every way.
Mr Walker’s point of view sounds good, but the reality is that it’s the funding for independent photojournalism that is a corpse still trying to breath.

By: josh c.

josh c. — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:11:15 +0000

Thanks David, well put

By: Jagdish Agarwal

Jagdish Agarwal — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:31:00 +0000

In India, photography exhibitions are not covered by most newspapers and magazines, because photographers are not able to pay the amount asked by these publications to cover the photography shows. So what happens. A wealthy person has a birthday party and it becomes an event for the press, because this person, to get published, is able to pay the newspapers and magazines. Think what may happen in the future.

By: David Walker

David Walker — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:53:42 +0000

I agree with all you say, Michael Fox, and against long, hard odds I do see photographers working to find effective ways to reach audiences, affect change, and get compensated for it. So far the success is limited. I’m among those hoping against hope that a workable distribution model emerges from the wreckage of traditional publishing. FU can call me clueless if he wants to, but until photographers stop trying, I can’t bring myself to join the “photojournalism is dead” choir. But I appreciate all the response I’ve received to this post. Thanks to all who engaged. DW

By: Michael Fox

Michael Fox — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:15:14 +0000

David Walker points out that there is an “explosion” of documentary stories all over the web. So what? The one question that almost always seems to be forgotten in these repetitive discussions and statements about the abysmal state of pj is, what is its purpose?
Different people take on a pj role for different reasons but, ultimately, the purpose must be to share a subject, story, whatever, with an audience that would otherwise be unaware of that subject, story etc. in an effort to motivate them to take action and make a difference. The long suffering and embarrassingly cliched phrase that is too often used is “to give voice to the voiceless.” There is another one, equally embarrassing, equally cliched – “I was witness to these events and these photographs are my testimony.” Spare me.
The issue we face today is that no matter how big the “explosion” of content on the web, there is a significant decrease in interest of those topics. The only people who seem to notice that a new black and white photo essay of starving babies in Africa has been posted to the Noor web site, is other photojournalists.
Unless there is a cohesive, intelligent, and compelling method of effectively distributing high-impact content to its intended, action-empowered audience, then pj really has lost it ability to make a difference, and, thus, its purpose.

By: David Walker

David Walker — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:25:33 +0000

sure, a BP-funded documentary of the oil spill would be PR. But is that the ONLY alternative to funding from a news organization? My point was that those who are saying photojournalism is dead are saying that because the archetype for photojournalism (Life magazine hiring
Gene Smith) no longer exists. But just because a narrow, traditional conception of photojournalism is dead doesn’t mean that documentary photography or visual story telling or whatever else you want to call it is dead. That said, I certainly understand the anger and frustration that it is no longer a viable living.

By: Ambrose Pierce

Ambrose Pierce — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:43:34 +0000

I concur with Mr. Naumann. Why do we insist on re-inventing the wheel and playing games with semantics. Call the “new business model” what it is: PR. There is no shame in that–it is, what it is. But don’t try to pass it off as journalism. PR has never been about the truth, it’s always been about manipulation and more often than not, outright lies. Imagine trying to do an honest and meaningful photographic essay on the recent oil spill in the Gulf and asking BP to underwrite it. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the pictures will amount to nothing more than lies. So if in fact PR is the future of photojournalism, then I think it’s safe to say that photojournalism is dead.

By: anderson schneider

anderson schneider — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:44:29 +0000

Yes, photojournalism is dead.
As dead as literature that is not commissioned anymore by magazines. Yeah, magazines used to commission literature – Truman Capote wrote In Cold Blood on assignment for The New Yorker and it was firstly published in four parts inside the magazine’s pages in 65.
As dead as painting and sculpture that are not commissioned anymore by the Medici Family in Firenze. Picasso’s Guernica, painted under assignment for the Spanish Republican Government? Bah, just PR…
As dead as music that is not commissioned anymore by huge recording labels…
The obituary goes forever…

By: FU

FU — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:16:27 +0000

Why is PDN so clueless?

By: Clark Patrick

Clark Patrick — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:44:35 +0000

Yeah, it’s called Faux-to Journalism. Of course there are more photojournalist than ever before finding news ways to tell their stories and maybe that is a better thing for content seekers, but that’s not his point – his point is that it’s really no longer a viable way to make a living. And that means something – especially if you use to make a living in this way. People will need to be able to make a living again as photojournalist in order for the best content to continue to surface. The problem needs to be seriously addressed from all sides. It’s not something to gloss over.