Print news photography: Jump ship or end up walking the plank
I remember back around 2001 or so when one of the photographers at a daily newspaper I was freelancing for announced he was leaving the business. I looked at this young, talented photographer as a source of inspiration, and couldn’t comprehend why he was leaving. He said “I see where this industry is headed, and I don’t want to be a part of it. ”
Digital camera technology was just in the beginning when he left, and most other shooters were looking at it as a good thing. No more waiting to process film and the ability to shoot, edit and file in minutes. It was also a cost saving measure for the publications. It would not only save time, but after the initial gear investment, there would be no more film or processing costs. Why was he leaving as this cutting edge technology was being introduced?
When the film processors were removed from the newspapers it was anything but ceremonious. After years of loyal service, they were carried out and dumped like the scrap metal they now were. The space they once occupied would now be renovated and used for digital work stations. Some of the bigger Daily Papers were buying hundreds of thousands of dollars in gear so their staff would be able to “go digital.” It wasn’t long before they could proudly say they were “fully digital.”
And what about us freelancers? If you answered “either go digital or go away” you are 100% correct! We were forced to buy our own digital gear to keep up, and also upgrade to computer equipment capable of processing these files. Do you remember when firewire first came out? The race for speed was on! Freelancers needed to spend 5 figures to stay in the game. But hey, we would be rewarded for our efforts yes? No.
Ok, if you’re a print news shooter and have gotten this far, you know where this is heading, so I’ll spare you the rest of the hyperbole.
Photojournalism was not only a way to earn a living, it was a way of life for most of us. It was something we loved. Perhaps it even defined who some of us were were as human beings. So why were some of these talented shooters jumping ship? Maybe they were smart enough to know that the industry started taking on water and was about to sink. I know four talented photographers that left the business early, and I envy them now. They were able to jump ship of their own free will and land safely. Others soon followed. It was a small exodus, if their is such a thing.
What were those of us who chose to stay onboard clinging to? Denial? We knew nothing else? We had hopes that the industry would rebound? The Titanic took a long time to sink, and News Photography was no different. Actually the reporters were feeling it as well. Talented writers were being laid off, or simply terminated as some of the bigger news agency CEO’s were still reaping 7 figure bonuses.
Some shooters that had their hours cut back, or were simply losing their jobs were offered a reason; User submitted content. What about the journalistic rule of ethics? It applied to photojournalists, not just the reporters. We were only allowed to do so much with an image file. Our editors had faith that when we filed, we adhered to that code. They trusted that the image was made on the day assigned.
When we file pictures of July 4th fireworks that evening, the editors have faith that they were made that evening, not the previous year, or even years ago and submitted as current event content. It’s not just about answering to our editors, more importantly it was about answering to our readers. What a fool they would feel if they knew they were lied to. And really, I’m not saying that this practice is commonplace amongst reader submitted pictures, it isn’t. It’s rare. But most of the readers submitting content do not follow a journalistic code of ethics.
Newspapers are cutting costs. Many are not updating their photo gear, Some of the readers submitting pictures to papers are shooting with the latest gear, It’s an expensive hobby, but they enjoy seeing their pictures in the newspaper. They’re investing thousands of dollars to make these pictures, taking the time to work on them and send them to news organizations, and they’re doing it for free even when papers had a budget for outside pictures!
Some reader shooters developed enough of a rapport with papers that they’ll call them to let them know they’ll be shooting an event that night. The papers may pull their staffer off the assignment (if assigned of course) and send him/her somewhere else, because they were now covered….for free.
It used to be a paper accepted a breaking news image from a reader on the scene because it may have been the only photo available. It is is now common practice with a lot of papers to accept sports, event and general news photos from; readers, PR agencies, schools, political parties, local and county governments etc. without a question as to who, what where and why these pictures were made. I was happy to hear that some of the bigger newspapers/organizations now require GPS in the photo file to confirm the location/date the image was made.
News organizations are a part of corporate America. The bottom line is still “why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?” Pride of photo staff is becoming a thing of the past with a lot of papers.
Photojournalism was, and still is a wonderful expression of self. What the shooter sees and experiences will show in the images they made. In depth photo stories made when shooters would spend days, weeks or months with a subject are still important and visually stimulating. There are still shooters like Eugene Richards we can turn to for inspiration.
But what about work? Well, the stories we hear are the same. Shooters that stayed aboard are now walking the plank. The lucky ones getting buyouts/severance, and the not so lucky simply getting laid off or getting their hours cut. Forced to try and live just above poverty level, it is only now they are looking to leave the industry.
Choose your next career well my friends. Try and find something you’re passionate about so that you can enjoy going to work. Oh, sorry. You’ve gone that route already.
