ariel and i are sitting at my favorite ocean ave. neighborhood coffee shop analyzing the state of journalism today and asking the big questions of "where are our jobs going? what are we going to be doing with our futures? and where do we as photographers fit into this ever-changing world of journalism?"
and ariel said something that i've been thinking for years but didn't really know how to put to words and that was: we are going to be part of a new generation of journalists that will not be retiring at a newspaper.
and that brought some light to the end of my tunnel and also a lot of confusing and daunting questions. i don't see myself at a newspaper in the next 5 years, but shouldn't i be pursuing that now? but why should i be wanting to work at newspapers, which have very few jobs for us shooters--and even fewer jobs at papers that actually give a shit about their visual departments--if most aren't even going to exist in the next 5 years?? where is journalism headed? where is online journalism headed?
4.23.2007
ariel said a really wise thing today...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Kristina!
I've been having a running version of this discussion with a friend who works at the Mercury News for about 3 weeks now. So I'll add my two cents:
As much as pains me to say it, there's little doubt in my mind that the newspaper is going the way of the dingo. It may take 25, or 50, or 100 years, but as digital media becomes more prominent, easier to use, cheaper to make and cheaper to access, it will become the dominant medium. Most newspapers as we know them today will either cease to function or become paperless news-gathering operations.
As a non-photog, I don't know exactly what that means for photogs like yourself. But I think the possibilities are really exciting, if the people who control and fund digital news-gathering are forward-thinking enough to embrace them. Think about it this way:
• There's essentially no space limitation to digital media. No more spending hours shooting dozens or hundreds of shots at an event, only to have to boil them down to a mere one or two pictures to make room for all those boring words.
• Digital media has all of the visual advantages of television, but with the added bonus of direct interactivity, which can give us an even clearer idea of what people want. If we're willing to respond, we can not only maintain the current size of the audience for news, we can make it grow again.
• The immediate nature of digital media eliminates the biggest barrier to newspapers' relevance - everything printed in them is out of date as soon as reaches the public. As broadband wireless coverage spreads, I'd imagine it won't be long before you're shooting an event in the field, then simply returning to your car to upload shots directly to a Web site.
Again, this is just speculation, I don't know exactly how things will shake out. But the fear, expressed by my friend at the Merc, that the emergence of the Internet and "amateur journalism" projects like blogs, CNN's I-Report, etc. is a direct threat to professional journalism, seems unfounded.
When the printing press was invented, sure, it meant that any schmuck with a point of view and the money to print it could become a "publisher," but there was still a market for the work of thoughtful (and presumably professional) writers/journalists.
The digital media revolution is just another version of that sea change. The news business will undoubtedly survive; those who stay ahead of the curve and adapt will flourish.
As a young photographer just beginning her career, you have a distinct advantage, in that you have one foot in the print world and on in the digital (witness this blog itself). So long as you're willing to embrace change, you're in a great position to be one of those who help move the news business into the future.
Post a Comment