Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Eric Weir]

Interesting article on the relevance of photojournalism today in this week's 
New Republic. Its a review of the introduction to the catalogue of the 
Cartier-Bresson exhibit organized by the Museum of Modern Art that is now in 
San Francisco and a new book on photography and political violence. In 
concluding the reviewer describes the writers as "levelheaded 
romanticsdetermined to rescue the power of photography from the scourge of 
sensationalism.
http://www.tnr.com/article/the-picture/81733/photojournalism-cartier-bresson-capa?utm_source=ESP+Integrated+List&utm_campaign=3b8c2d6859-TNR_BA_012111&utm_medium=email

--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@bellsouth.net





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[P. J. Alling]

Good luck.

On 1/21/2011 7:39 PM, Eric Weir wrote:

Interesting article on the relevance of photojournalism today in this week's New 
Republic. Its a review of the introduction to the catalogue of the Cartier-Bresson 
exhibit organized by the Museum of Modern Art that is now in San Francisco and a new 
book on photography and political violence. In concluding the reviewer describes the 
writers as "levelheaded romanticsdetermined to rescue the power of 
photography from the scourge of sensationalism.
http://www.tnr.com/article/the-picture/81733/photojournalism-cartier-bresson-capa?utm_source=ESP+Integrated+List&utm_campaign=3b8c2d6859-TNR_BA_012111&utm_medium=email

--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@bellsouth.net








--
Where's the Kaboom?  There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom!

--Marvin the Martian.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[David Parsons]

Sure it's relevant.  It won't be the same style that we are used to,
just like PJ from the 80's and 90's isn't the same as from the 50's or
30's.  There will always be some sensationalism to it.  That's kind of
the point.

Most likely, it will be bloggers who have a specific focus that have
the time and inclination to follow stories that are important to them.

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Eric Weir  wrote:
>
> Interesting article on the relevance of photojournalism today in this week's 
> New Republic. Its a review of the introduction to the catalogue of the 
> Cartier-Bresson exhibit organized by the Museum of Modern Art that is now in 
> San Francisco and a new book on photography and political violence. In 
> concluding the reviewer describes the writers as "levelheaded 
> romanticsdetermined to rescue the power of photography from the scourge 
> of sensationalism.
> http://www.tnr.com/article/the-picture/81733/photojournalism-cartier-bresson-capa?utm_source=ESP+Integrated+List&utm_campaign=3b8c2d6859-TNR_BA_012111&utm_medium=email
>
> --
> Eric Weir
> Decatur, GA  USA
> eew...@bellsouth.net
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
David Parsons Photography
http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com

Aloha Photographer Photoblog
http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Doug Franklin]

On 2011-01-21 19:39, Eric Weir wrote:


Interesting article on the relevance of photojournalism today in this week's New 
Republic. Its a review of the introduction to the catalogue of the Cartier-Bresson 
exhibit organized by the Museum of Modern Art that is now in San Francisco and a new 
book on photography and political violence. In concluding the reviewer describes the 
writers as "levelheaded romanticsdetermined to rescue the power of 
photography from the scourge of sensationalism.
http://www.tnr.com/article/the-picture/81733/photojournalism-cartier-bresson-capa?utm_source=ESP+Integrated+List&utm_campaign=3b8c2d6859-TNR_BA_012111&utm_medium=email


Sounds to me like largely pointless navel-gazing.  Time will tell us 
what the role of future photojournalism will be.  Prognosticating about 
it now does little good, to my mind, other than figuring out where there 
might be investment opportunities, if you're not a photo journalist, or 
where the job opportunities will, or won't, be, if you are.


--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Darren Addy]

I dislike the writer of that article even before finishing the opening
paragraph. All one has to do is take a sentence like this one to know
we aren't dealing with an intellectual giant here, let alone anyone
who understands the subject they claim to be writing about: "Or are
they mostly regarded as imaginative artists who just happen to be
drawn to tough, newsworthy subjects?" I hardly know where to start on
that one.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[John Sessoms]

"Photojournalism" says he's still alive and doing quite well. Reports of 
his death have, to coin a phrase, "been greatly exaggerated."


He did note with a touch of wistfulness that his great friend, 
"Photojournalism JOBS", has not been seen for quite some time, and seems 
to have passed from the scene.



-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3395 - Release Date: 01/21/11


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Eric Weir]

On Jan 22, 2011, at 12:43 PM, John Sessoms wrote:

> He did note with a touch of wistfulness that his great friend, 
> "Photojournalism JOBS", has not been seen for quite some time, and seems to 
> have passed from the scene.

I think that's one of the motivations of the article: When photojournalism is 
no longer being done by photojournalists, because there are many and 
increasingly fewer jobs than there used to be, what, specifically, might we be 
losing? Call it navel gazing if you want, throw a fit if you want, I found it 
an interesting question, and I thought the review was well done. It made me 
want to read the things he was reviewing.

Actually, though, I didn't mean to start a discussion -- contrary to what my 
poorly chosen subject heading may suggest -- but just to call attention to the 
review. Certainly it's not a topic on which I'm qualified to speak. I just 
thought there might be a few who would find it interesting. 

Regards, 
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@bellsouth.net





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Stan Halpin]

On Jan 22, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Eric Weir wrote:

>  . . .Actually, though, I didn't mean to start a discussion ...

On PDML Discussion is our middle name (for values of "middle"  ≥ -1,  ≤ 2 )

stan
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Eric Weir]

On Jan 22, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Stan Halpin wrote:

> On PDML Discussion is our middle name (for values of "middle"  ≥ -1,  ≤ 2 )

Yeah, I've noticed. Freaked me out when I first joined up and immediately 
started receiving 200-300 messages a day. Couldn't bring myself to even look. 
But when I did I found it was just all the back-and-forth of discussion among a 
few good friends. That, by contrast, was very appealing.

--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@bellsouth.net





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[John Sessoms]

From: Doug Franklin

On 2011-01-21 19:39, Eric Weir wrote:


Interesting article on the relevance of photojournalism today in
this week's New Republic. Its a review of the introduction to the
catalogue of the Cartier-Bresson exhibit organized by the Museum
of Modern Art that is now in San Francisco and a new book on
photography and political violence. In concluding the reviewer
describes the writers as "levelheaded romanticsdetermined to
rescue the power of photography from the scourge of
sensationalism.
http://www.tnr.com/article/the-picture/81733/photojournalism-cartier-bresson-capa?utm_source=ESP+Integrated+List&utm_campaign=3b8c2d6859-TNR_BA_012111&utm_medium=email





Sounds to me like largely pointless navel-gazing.  Time will tell us
what the role of future photojournalism will be.  Prognosticating
about it now does little good, to my mind, other than figuring out
where there might be investment opportunities, if you're not a photo
journalist, or where the job opportunities will, or won't, be, if you
are.


It took me several attempts to read through it, but I finally figured 
out it's not really an article about photojournalism.


It's a book review by the New Republic's Art Critic, deconstructing a 
postmodernist work criticizing a lack of moral relevance in today's 
criticism of photojournalism, comparing that to another work on the 
history of photography criticism. All of which appear to be driven 
mainly by a lament for the passing of the genre of great, popular, 
photography driven, weekly "news" magazines as represented by Life and 
Look.


Obfuscation piled upon obscurity, although I may have gotten them backwards.

It's difficult to see where Linfield's criticism of photojournalism 
criticism's lack of relevance ends and Perl's criticism of Lindfield's 
lack of relevance begins. Or how either of them fit into "the difficult 
terrain where the most extreme artistic expressions and the most urgent 
ethical questions cannot be disentangled."


It's another postmodernist repetition of the Worm of Ouroboros (the 
dragon who devours his own tail). The story ends in the same place where 
it begins, circling in an ever descending spiral until it vanishes up 
its own asshole.


I just don't understand postmodernism. You can't kill it by hitting it 
over the head with a big rock. So, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't 
really exist.


I do agree that Life and Look were great magazines, and I wish they were 
still around ... and still hiring.


See also: Hoop Snake.


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3395 - Release Date: 01/21/11


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Eric Weir]

On Jan 22, 2011, at 3:06 PM, John Sessoms wrote:

> It's a book review by the New Republic's Art Critic, deconstructing a 
> postmodernist work criticizing a lack of moral relevance in today's criticism 
> of photojournalism . . . .

Well, I said I didn't mean to start a discussion, but I'm not able to resist 
commenting on this. Yes, the article is a review, not an article on 
photojournalism, but two things are reviewed, not one -- an appreciation of 
Cartier-Bresson as well as the Linfield book. Far from being "postmodernist," 
Linfield writes in defense of the idea that photographs can communicate 
important truths and have moral significance. That is about as anti-post-modern 
as you can get. And far from being a "deconstruction" of her book -- or of the 
essay on Cartier-Bresson -- the review is a sympathetic appreciation of it.  

--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@bellsouth.net





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Bob W]

> > On PDML Discussion is our middle name (for values of "middle"  ≥ -1,
> ≤ 2 )
> 
> Yeah, I've noticed. Freaked me out when I first joined up and
> immediately started receiving 200-300 messages a day. Couldn't bring
> myself to even look. But when I did I found it was just all the back-
> and-forth of discussion among a few good friends. That, by contrast,
> was very appealing.

that's why they didn't call it the PSTFUML.

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Cotty]

On 22/1/11, Eric Weir, discombobulated, unleashed:

> I didn't mean to start a discussion

MARK.

--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Eric Weir]

On Jan 23, 2011, at 4:33 AM, Bob W wrote:

>>> On PDML Discussion is our middle name (for values of "middle"  ≥ -1,
>> ≤ 2 )
>> 
>> Yeah, I've noticed. Freaked me out when I first joined up and
>> immediately started receiving 200-300 messages a day. Couldn't bring
>> myself to even look. But when I did I found it was just all the back-
>> and-forth of discussion among a few good friends. That, by contrast,
>> was very appealing.
> 
> that's why they didn't call it the PSTFUML.

PSTFUML?

--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@bellsouth.net





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[mike wilson]

On 24/01/2011, Eric Weir  wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2011, at 4:33 AM, Bob W wrote:
>
 On PDML Discussion is our middle name (for values of "middle"  ≥ -1,
>>> ≤ 2 )
>>>
>>> Yeah, I've noticed. Freaked me out when I first joined up and
>>> immediately started receiving 200-300 messages a day. Couldn't bring
>>> myself to even look. But when I did I found it was just all the back-
>>> and-forth of discussion among a few good friends. That, by contrast,
>>> was very appealing.
>>
>> that's why they didn't call it the PSTFUML.
>
> PSTFUML?

Pentax shut theI'm sure you get the gist..list

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Eric Weir]

On Jan 27, 2011, at 3:13 PM, mike wilson wrote:

>> PSTFUML?
> 
> Pentax shut theI'm sure you get the gist..list

Thanks, Mike. I was apprised of it off list. As I said to that person, in my 
case I imagine sometimes people wish they *had* chosen that name. -;)

--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@bellsouth.net





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Christine Aguila]

Photojournalists are not less relevant; in fact, I think they are needed 
more than ever these days.  However, the problem is the arena in which they 
have historically functioned--newspapers and magazines--has been 
considerably diminished.  Give the photojournalists back their playing 
field, allow them to tell the picture stories freely and they will.  They 
will photograph the storys we should be caring about--shouting 
about--carrying on cranky about.


(I have some uncharitable views towards the owners and direction of today's 
newspapers and magazines, but I'll keep those views to myself for now :-))


I'm just about done with a book called *Magnum:  50 Years at the Front Line 
of History.*  Fascinating read.  Consider this passage from the 11th chapter 
entitled, *End of the Glory Days*:


"Rene Burri remembers the precise moment when he realised the best days of 
photo-journalism were over.  He thinks it was as early as 1957 or 1958.  He 
had been out all day chasing a news story in Greece and was sitting down for 
the first time in hours on a brown leather couch in the lobby of his Athens 
hotel, unloading his film and getting it ready for dispatch.  The evening 
news flickered on the lobby television and Burri realised, with a mixture of 
incredulity and shock, that the selfsame pictures he had been taking all day 
were being shown on the television screen before he had even finished 
rewinding the film from his camera, let alone getting it to the airport. 
His images had yet to be developed, yet to be printed, yet to be 
distributed--and already they were out of date."  p. 230


I think digital photography helps keep photojournalism alive--no film 
processing and quality of cameras has greatly improved.  Today, we  have 
some amazing news images on the net and in the newspapers.


I also think what we need is a bigger educated viewership, which understands 
the value--the importance of still photography/photojournalism.  It's 
unfortunate that younger generations didn't have the opportunity to grow up 
with magazines like Life et al.  The library at school has the complete set 
of Life magazine, and I've been recently sneaking in time to go through all 
the issues.  The 1st issue was 11/23/1936.  I've gotten as far as the 
12/14/1936 issue.  Fascinating.  I hope to write some short reflections of 
my experience on my blog.


I agree with Hurnn and Jay:  the history of photography is the history of 
subject--content--and the stuff of content has not lost its relevance--we 
just need to show the viewer how to care about life's content again.


Cheers, Christine 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Eric Weir]

On Jan 29, 2011, at 12:07 AM, Christine Aguila wrote:

> Photojournalists are not less relevant; in fact, I think they are needed more 
> than ever these days.

Agreed.

> I think digital photography helps keep photojournalism alive--no film 
> processing and quality of cameras has greatly improved.  Today, we  have some 
> amazing news images on the net and in the newspapers.

True, but it's also one of the reasons serious photojournalism is in jeopardy: 
Everybody has a camera, at least a phone camera. Images direct from the scene 
of events abound. And they're free. 

> It's unfortunate that younger generations didn't have the opportunity to grow 
> up with magazines like Life et al.  The library at school has the complete 
> set of Life magazine, and I've been recently sneaking in time to go through 
> all the issues.  The 1st issue was 11/23/1936.  I've gotten as far as the 
> 12/14/1936 issue.  Fascinating.  I hope to write some short reflections of my 
> experience on my blog.

That would be cool. 

--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@bellsouth.net





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Bob W]

> > I think digital photography helps keep photojournalism alive--no film
> processing and quality of cameras has greatly improved.  Today, we
> have some amazing news images on the net and in the newspapers.
> 
> True, but it's also one of the reasons serious photojournalism is in
> jeopardy: Everybody has a camera, at least a phone camera. Images
> direct from the scene of events abound. And they're free.
> 

The omnipresence of cameras and the growth of 'citizen journalism' means
that more events are covered than previously, not that free coverage will
replace professional coverage. For example, when the tube and bus bombs
exploded in London in July 2005 footage was available from the ordinary
people who were caught up in it. There appear to have been no professionals
on hand. Conversely, when the aeroplanes flew into the WTC, New York was
full of professionals able to cover it - Magnum, for instance, had many of
their top people in town for a conference and their coverage was very
extensive and widely published, at the expense of the many citizen
journalists who were also there.

I don't think that in a straight fight for quality coverage by the
recognised media, free will ever out-do professional. After all, there are
also plenty of non-professionals around who can write, but still the editors
choose professional writers, as well as talking to eye witnesses.

To me the issue, if there is one, about old-style photojournalism is that
there were fewer media in which to be published when the magazines either
ceased publication or went all lifestyle. However, now that everyone can
publish on a worldwide basis the game changes. The question now is how to
draw attention to, and for the viewer how to find, the most trustworthy and
informative photojournalism. There is probably more high quality
photojournalism out there than there ever has been, and it doesn't depend on
the fortuitous liberalism of a small number of press barons. It's just not
on the newsstands, and you have to make more effort to find it. Start here:
.

> > It's unfortunate that younger generations didn't have the opportunity
> to grow up with magazines like Life et al.  The library at school has
> the complete set of Life magazine, and I've been recently sneaking in
> time to go through all the issues.  The 1st issue was 11/23/1936.  I've
> gotten as far as the 12/14/1936 issue.  Fascinating.  I hope to write
> some short reflections of my experience on my blog.
> 
> That would be cool.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Larry Colen]

On Jan 28, 2011, at 9:07 PM, Christine Aguila wrote:

> 
> 
> (I have some uncharitable views towards the owners and direction of today's 
> newspapers and magazines, but I'll keep those views to myself for now :-))

I think that uncharitable is a good word for this, because the news is now 
looked at as a profit center.

--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Steven Desjardins]

Wasn't is always?  Most major papers worked on a "for profit" basis,
and went out of business when they didn't make money.  These days here
are so many sources competing for your attention.  Remember yellow
journalism?   Sensationalism has become the norm, unfortunately.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2011, at 9:07 PM, Christine Aguila wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> (I have some uncharitable views towards the owners and direction of today's 
>> newspapers and magazines, but I'll keep those views to myself for now :-))
>
> I think that uncharitable is a good word for this, because the news is now 
> looked at as a profit center.
>
> --
> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
Steve Desjardins

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Larry Colen]

On Jan 30, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:

> Wasn't is always?  Most major papers worked on a "for profit" basis,
> and went out of business when they didn't make money.  These days here
> are so many sources competing for your attention.  Remember yellow
> journalism?   Sensationalism has become the norm, unfortunately.

I remember hearing on an NPR story that it used to be that companies were 
content with a small profit from their news department, but now that money 
comes more from stock market performance, people will jetison companies that 
don't make enough profit. I believe that there was also a time that Networks 
and stations would regard their news department as a means of enhancing their 
image, rather than a primary source of income.

But, I could be completely wrong, it's been known to happen.

> 
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 28, 2011, at 9:07 PM, Christine Aguila wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (I have some uncharitable views towards the owners and direction of today's 
>>> newspapers and magazines, but I'll keep those views to myself for now :-))
>> 
>> I think that uncharitable is a good word for this, because the news is now 
>> looked at as a profit center.
>> 
>> --
>> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steve Desjardins
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Steven Desjardins]

That's probably true for TV.  I was  thinking about newspapers.  It
was only speculation, however.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
>
>> Wasn't is always?  Most major papers worked on a "for profit" basis,
>> and went out of business when they didn't make money.  These days here
>> are so many sources competing for your attention.  Remember yellow
>> journalism?   Sensationalism has become the norm, unfortunately.
>
> I remember hearing on an NPR story that it used to be that companies were 
> content with a small profit from their news department, but now that money 
> comes more from stock market performance, people will jetison companies that 
> don't make enough profit. I believe that there was also a time that Networks 
> and stations would regard their news department as a means of enhancing their 
> image, rather than a primary source of income.
>
> But, I could be completely wrong, it's been known to happen.
>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 28, 2011, at 9:07 PM, Christine Aguila wrote:
>>>


 (I have some uncharitable views towards the owners and direction of 
 today's newspapers and magazines, but I'll keep those views to myself for 
 now :-))
>>>
>>> I think that uncharitable is a good word for this, because the news is now 
>>> looked at as a profit center.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>>> follow the directions.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steve Desjardins
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
>
> --
> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
Steve Desjardins

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Paul Stenquist]

Most major dailies are much less profitable than they once were, and the good 
papers don't answer to shareholders. For example, the  Ochs-Sulzberger family 
has owned The New York Times for115 years, and there are impenetrable barriers 
between ad sales and editorial. There are still quite a few newspapers that are 
very protective of their integrity and reputation. However, all realize that 
their print market is shrinking, and  they have to transition to electronic 
media. Many are achieving a measure of success on the web. The Times website, 
for example,  attracts about 20 million viewers a month. It doesn't yet 
generate enough revenue to make up for losses suffered by the print edition, 
but it's revenues are growing.
Paul

On Jan 30, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Larry Colen wrote:

> 
> On Jan 30, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> 
>> Wasn't is always?  Most major papers worked on a "for profit" basis,
>> and went out of business when they didn't make money.  These days here
>> are so many sources competing for your attention.  Remember yellow
>> journalism?   Sensationalism has become the norm, unfortunately.
> 
> I remember hearing on an NPR story that it used to be that companies were 
> content with a small profit from their news department, but now that money 
> comes more from stock market performance, people will jetison companies that 
> don't make enough profit. I believe that there was also a time that Networks 
> and stations would regard their news department as a means of enhancing their 
> image, rather than a primary source of income.
> 
> But, I could be completely wrong, it's been known to happen.
> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Jan 28, 2011, at 9:07 PM, Christine Aguila wrote:
>>> 
 
 
 (I have some uncharitable views towards the owners and direction of 
 today's newspapers and magazines, but I'll keep those views to myself for 
 now :-))
>>> 
>>> I think that uncharitable is a good word for this, because the news is now 
>>> looked at as a profit center.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>>> follow the directions.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Steve Desjardins
>> 
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
> 
> --
> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Paul Stenquist]

Doh..."its revenues are growing." Damn apostrophes sneak in there every now and 
then:-).

On Jan 30, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

> Most major dailies are much less profitable than they once were, and the good 
> papers don't answer to shareholders. For example, the  Ochs-Sulzberger family 
> has owned The New York Times for115 years, and there are impenetrable 
> barriers between ad sales and editorial. There are still quite a few 
> newspapers that are very protective of their integrity and reputation. 
> However, all realize that their print market is shrinking, and  they have to 
> transition to electronic media. Many are achieving a measure of success on 
> the web. The Times website, for example,  attracts about 20 million viewers a 
> month. It doesn't yet generate enough revenue to make up for losses suffered 
> by the print edition, but it's revenues are growing.
> Paul
> 
> On Jan 30, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 30, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
>> 
>>> Wasn't is always?  Most major papers worked on a "for profit" basis,
>>> and went out of business when they didn't make money.  These days here
>>> are so many sources competing for your attention.  Remember yellow
>>> journalism?   Sensationalism has become the norm, unfortunately.
>> 
>> I remember hearing on an NPR story that it used to be that companies were 
>> content with a small profit from their news department, but now that money 
>> comes more from stock market performance, people will jetison companies that 
>> don't make enough profit. I believe that there was also a time that Networks 
>> and stations would regard their news department as a means of enhancing 
>> their image, rather than a primary source of income.
>> 
>> But, I could be completely wrong, it's been known to happen.
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
 
 On Jan 28, 2011, at 9:07 PM, Christine Aguila wrote:
 
> 
> 
> (I have some uncharitable views towards the owners and direction of 
> today's newspapers and magazines, but I'll keep those views to myself for 
> now :-))
 
 I think that uncharitable is a good word for this, because the news is now 
 looked at as a profit center.
 
 --
 Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
 
 
 
 
 
 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Steve Desjardins
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>>> follow the directions.
>> 
>> --
>> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Eric Weir]

On Jan 30, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

> The Times website, for example,  attracts about 20 million viewers a month. 
> It doesn't yet generate enough revenue to make up for losses suffered by the 
> print edition, but it's revenues are growing

I gather they're going to start charging for over a limited number of article 
views next month sometime. They now have a nifty "reader" that I think disposes 
of ads and includes all the articles, not just the ones linked on the website 
as currently for about $20 a month. [Two week free trial.] I'm tempted.

--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@bellsouth.net





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Eric Weir]

On the subject, perhaps many/most of you will already of seen the NYTs photos 
of the situation in Egypt, but just in case here's a link to a album. Not 
surprisingly, they've had some dramatic images since this started.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/?hp

Tthe photographer who produced the album linked above talks about the 
situation, his experience, and his career here. 
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/cairo-photographer-sees-hope-in-turmoil/

--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@bellsouth.net





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[P. J. Alling]

Expect that 20m viewers to drop off considerably when they start charging.


On 1/31/2011 10:17 AM, Eric Weir wrote:

On Jan 30, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:


The Times website, for example,  attracts about 20 million viewers a month. It 
doesn't yet generate enough revenue to make up for losses suffered by the print 
edition, but it's revenues are growing

I gather they're going to start charging for over a limited number of article views next 
month sometime. They now have a nifty "reader" that I think disposes of ads and 
includes all the articles, not just the ones linked on the website as currently for about 
$20 a month. [Two week free trial.] I'm tempted.

--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@bellsouth.net




--
Where's the Kaboom?  There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom!

--Marvin the Martian.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Eric Weir]

On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:45 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:

> Expect that 20m viewers to drop off considerably when they start charging.

I did last time they experimented with this. My sense is this time it's not an 
experiment. Many may be in a different place about it, but I've decided it's 
worth it. I'd like to see them continuing paying guys like that photographer in 
Cairo, among others. [Very sorry to see Mark Bittman's "The Minimalist" column 
go, though.]  

--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@bellsouth.net





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[Paul Stenquist]

Perhaps. But some of the site will remain free. And I believe that in some 
cases, readers will have their choice of an advertisement-free paid site or a 
commercial site with ads. Survival is dependent on the revenue flow.

On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:45 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:

> Expect that 20m viewers to drop off considerably when they start charging.
> 
> 
> On 1/31/2011 10:17 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> 
>>> The Times website, for example,  attracts about 20 million viewers a month. 
>>> It doesn't yet generate enough revenue to make up for losses suffered by 
>>> the print edition, but it's revenues are growing
>> I gather they're going to start charging for over a limited number of 
>> article views next month sometime. They now have a nifty "reader" that I 
>> think disposes of ads and includes all the articles, not just the ones 
>> linked on the website as currently for about $20 a month. [Two week free 
>> trial.] I'm tempted.
>> 
>> --
>> Eric Weir
>> Decatur, GA  USA
>> eew...@bellsouth.net
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Where's the Kaboom?  There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom!
> 
>   --Marvin the Martian.
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[John Sessoms]

From: Larry Colen

On Jan 30, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:


Wasn't is always?  Most major papers worked on a "for profit"
basis, and went out of business when they didn't make money.
These days here are so many sources competing for your attention.
Remember yellow journalism?   Sensationalism has become the norm,
unfortunately.

I remember hearing on an NPR story that it used to be that companies
were content with a small profit from their news department, but now
that money comes more from stock market performance, people will
jetison companies that don't make enough profit. I believe that there
was also a time that Networks and stations would regard their news
department as a means of enhancing their image, rather than a primary
source of income.

But, I could be completely wrong, it's been known to happen.




Used to be a broadcast license was held "in the public interest".  If 
the corporation that held that license didn't serve the public interest, 
the FCC could take the license back. Network & local news were how the 
corporations demonstrated they were operating "in the public interest".


Government regulation used to restrain corporate misconduct. That's no 
longer the case, and the corporations that control the media have no 
more incentive to engage in honest dealing with the public than any 
other corporate miscreant.


Newspapers profited from selling advertising. The greater the paper's 
circulation, the more advertising revenue. The papers were careful about 
stories that affected their major advertisers. Editorials appeared on 
the editorial page, not in the reportage. With the advent of the 24hour 
cable "news" cycle and the internet as an alternative source of news, 
newspaper circulation and advertising revenues declined.


As circulation dropped, newspapers adopted practices that appear to to 
me to accelerate the decline in circulation, which in turn reduces the 
constraints that kept them "honest"; the wall separating editorializing 
and reportage crumbles ... and further accelerates the decline in 
circulation.



-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3413 - Release Date: 01/30/11


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[John Sessoms]

From: Paul Stenquist

Most major dailies are much less profitable than they once were, and
the good papers don't answer to shareholders. For example, the
Ochs-Sulzberger family has owned The New York Times for115 years, and
there are impenetrable barriers between ad sales and editorial. There
are still quite a few newspapers that are very protective of their
integrity and reputation. However, all realize that their print
market is shrinking, and  they have to transition to electronic
media. Many are achieving a measure of success on the web. The Times
website, for example,  attracts about 20 million viewers a month. It
doesn't yet generate enough revenue to make up for losses suffered by
the print edition, but it's revenues are growing.
Paul


When the NYT went to a subscription model for their online content, I 
bought a subscription. Gave the same content as the print edition plus 
online access to the archives but cost less than home delivery 
(especially home delivery out here in the boonies).


But, about six months into my first year's subscription to the online 
edition, the NYT decided to abandon the subscription model for online 
content. Didn't offer any (pro-rated) refund to those of us who had paid 
for a subscription, just let anyone who had not paid get the same level 
of access as paid subscribers.


I have not subsequently re-subscribed to the print edition.


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3413 - Release Date: 01/30/11


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Is photojournalism relevant anymore?

[John Sessoms]

From: Eric Weir

On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:45 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:

Expect that 20m viewers to drop off considerably when they start
charging.

I did last time they experimented with this. My sense is this time
it's not an experiment. Many may be in a different place about it,
but I've decided it's worth it. I'd like to see them continuing
paying guys like that photographer in Cairo, among others. [Very
sorry to see Mark Bittman's "The Minimalist" column go, though.]


I felt like I got screwed the last time they "experimented" with this. 
I'm not sure it's worth it this time around.


I'll have to see if the cost:benefit ratio makes sense before I 
"subscribe" again.



-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3413 - Release Date: 01/30/11


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.