Are newspaper photography self-destructing?

[PeterB]

Time for a return to news groups and magazines. The central control of google is scary..

You are accusing Google of manipulating the search results to ensure bias against APUG. I disagree.

An uneducated user who typed "film photography group" or "analog photography" or "photographic film group" into Google would see APUG either at the top of the results or not far from it. e.g. here, here and here

 

[Tom1956]

I ended up signing up on apug because in my google searches to find credible answers, I kept being directed back here. Look at some of the other photographic chat sites. There are some very smart people on this one.

 

[sharperstill]

In Australia it's going to be tough for News Ltd & Fairfax to convince apple to pay for news online when they will always be able o get it for free from the ABC and SBS.

J

 

[jtk]

As a newspaper photographer in the US I can say, to answer the question in the heading: No.

To answer "how come newspaper circulation continues its steady decline?": the answers are many, but none because of photography.

There are lots of outside forces acting on newspapers, it is not (entirely) a self-inflicted wounding. Lots of people blame newspapers for failing to react nimbly enough to the once-oncoming digital tide. True enough, but also I say it is a lot of people basically saying : "You failed to become Google." Which is not particularly fair to the newspaper industry as a whole.

I fully agree with Poisson du Jour.
Further in the US we have several national newspapers that readily rival Life Magazine in their dedication to photojournalism... New York Times at top of list. As well, MANY local newspapers in the US display their best photojournalism on their websites.

 

[wyofilm]

You are accusing Google of manipulating the search results to ensure bias against APUG. I disagree.

An uneducated user who typed "film photography group" or "analog photography" or "photographic film group" into Google would see APUG either at the top of the results or not far from it. e.g. here, here and here

When I put in 'film photography' APUG/photrio doesn't come up in the first three pages in Google. Very term specific? (I'm no internet guru!)

 

[faberryman]

When I put in 'film photography' APUG/photrio doesn't come up in the first three pages in Google. Very term specific? (I'm no internet guru!)

If you type in "analog photography", Photrio shows up on the first page.

 

[jtk]

When I put in 'film photography' APUG/photrio doesn't come up in the first three pages in Google. Very term specific? (I'm no internet guru!)

APUG is gone now, it's Photrio now. APUG did a great job of turning off contemporary art and professional (i.e. digital) photographers. Doesn't seem to have learned much. I'm shooting film and digital, recognizing that film is quaint.

 

[faberryman]

APUG is gone now, it's Photrio now. APUG did a great job of turning off contemporary art and professional (i.e. digital) photographers. Doesn't seem to have learned much. I'm shooting film and digital, recognizing that film is quaint.

I don’t think contemporary artists and professional photographers pay much attention to forums so I’m not sure how APUG could have turned them off.

 

[Nodda Duma]

The internet killed the newspaper market. News photography was caught in the crossfire.

 

[Eric Rose]

I saw an ad in a local paper looking for a journalist. On the imaging side all they were looking for is the ability to do video. This paper is part of a national chain and for the most part has gutted their still photography departments..

There are many reasons why print media is failing. One of the major problems it has is it's advertising rate models. Too expensive and low roi compared to targeted internet social media advertising. All I ever see in this particular newspaper are car dealership ads. This doesn't surprise me as the North American auto industry still thinks it's the 80's.

 

[jtk]

I don’t think contemporary artists and professional photographers pay much attention to forums so I’m not sure how APUG could have turned them off.

Photrio actively discourages contemporary artists and professional photographers by aggressively discouraging digital photography and being oblivious to inkjet printing. Not much "contemporary art" and not many professional portfolio images here.

Contemporary artists and professional photographers take part in forums more related to the late 20th and 21st centuries.

Photrio is interesting to me as a long-retired commercial photographer (who now stand processes Rodinal). APUG was (was) of no interest because of its tourist/hobbyist orientation.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Photrio actively discourages contemporary artists and professional photographers by aggressively discouraging digital photography and being oblivious to inkjet printing. Not much "contemporary art" and not many professional portfolio images here.

Contemporary artists and professional photographers take part in forums more related to the late 20th and 21st centuries.

Photrio is interesting to me as a long-retired commercial photographer (who now stand processes Rodinal). APUG was (was) of no interest because of its tourist/hobbyist orientation.

Just not so. There are places for analog, hybrid and digital photographers on Photrio. Perhaps you should check all of the choice boxes.

 

[cliveh]

Since I retired early from news photography some time ago, the few people I still know who are active in the profession, tell me things are really dire, and they can't wait to get out. The obsession with "celebrity" that afflicts the media seems to have resulted in younger photographers who are invariably "paparazzi
orientated"......running around like panicky headless chickens squirting off ten frames a second on their digis.

The thoughtful, discreet kind of photographer is no longer wanted...it's all "up in yer face" flash on camera rubbish.

If newspaper editors think this is what people want, then how come newspaper circulation continues its steady decline into almost certain eventual oblivion?

And since the "digital revolution"....so many punters are sending in pictures to magazines etc., for free, that some don't even want to pay for professional pictures anymore.

Is this happening in other countries apart from the UK too?...I suspect it is in some form or other.

They may squirt off 100 frames a second, but none will compare to a precisely timed shot which is also precisely framed.

 

[faberryman]

Newspaper photography is not self-destructing. It is being killed by the bean counters.

 

[faberryman]

Here in Italy most newspapers, even the most serious ones (imagine the horoscope in the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal), had the horoscope because it was obvious that if you had no horoscope you would loose clients because some wives would insist with their husbands (in any social class) that they buy a newspaper with the horoscope.

So it was wives that insisted on the horoscope. Hmm...

 

[Colin Corneau]

Newspapers are dying off because the people running them A) think they are in the business of pressing ink onto paper instead of the business of disseminating information, and B ) because they by and large are greedy and short-sighted.

It seems barely a week goes by without news here in North America of the largest media chain laying off scores of journalists while simultaneously giving their shameless and failed higher-ups multi-million dollar bonuses: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/rep...eceive-23-million-in-bonuses/article33009649/
http://deadline.com/2017/12/michael...-payout-after-layoffs-outsourcing-1202232409/

I won't get into the morality of these few examples, but it defies reality to think that this type of blatant greed isn't connected to a company failing...newspaper or otherwise. They're so shameless that here in Canada they have the gall to whine for a government bailout for the industry...no acknowledgment that they've mismanaged things, no admission of error, certainly no promise to do things differently in the future. Just GIMME. Not surprisingly, that idea has gone over about as well as a fart in church.

Newspapers, for decades, counted on a monopoly to make a revenue model based entirely on advertising feasible. The tide was high and any idiot could dive in and splash about.
Well...now there's not a monopoly anymore. The tide has gone out. And now we see who wasn't wearing a swimsuit all that time.

Photography has nothing to do with papers floundering. Images, professionally crafted with care, have always been a key part of a successful media property...now more than ever. A fish rots from the head down...nuff said.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Newspaper photography is not self-destructing. It is being killed by the bean counters.

And lack of readers and advertisers.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The N Y Times still has considerable photojournalism, essays, reviews, stills, videos, etc. Here is the Google search results for NY Times photo for just the last month. Click on some of them and enjoy.
https://www.google.com/search?q=new...-D_ajYAhUvRN8KHYu0CZYQpwUIIQ&biw=1536&bih=855

 

[Ste_S]

The internet killed the newspaper market. News photography was caught in the crossfire.

Mainstream photo journalism was killed off much before that with the advent of portable video recorders and the rise of TV, and later 24hr rolling news.

I think the opportunities for personal photo journalism have never been stronger though - multiple platforms are available to get your images out there

 

[NJH]

Just found this thread -- YES the Freelance Photographer is being squeezed out by FREE submissions especially here in Essex, England. I have been in Freelance work since 1970 and so many local newspapers have gone broke and have stopped paying any fees -- the last 'Ordered' job I got was first week of JANUARY - I submitted two picture jobs in APRIL and they were used but NOTHING in February and March and so far nothing in May . I have my Government Pension luckily but need some 'Top-up' as I have to keep digging into my savings now to top-up bank to pay the Gas and Electric bills £ 110-00 a month, gone UP from £75-00 a month!

I feel for you Pete, I have a similar experience as someone who has never been a freelance news/local photographer. I spotted that one of the local rags, all free these days and paid for by advertising had far too much ropey poor quality photography for my liking. I had taken some nice pictures that weekend of some guys paragliding so inquired about sending them in only to find their idea was yes free submissions please. One of the most basic important rules in life is no freebies for commercial organisations. Working for free is one step from slavery.

It is genuinely sad though the result this is having on quality, in decades past many local papers had really superb staff photographers and no doubt seeing high quality work (even if printed awfully) was an influence on me to take up photography as a hobby, and no doubt influenced a great many other people.

 

[jim10219]

As a millennial, I think newspapers are going to become like analog photography or vinyl records: a niche but strong market for the true enthusiasts. We're in the digital transition period for news, where people who read the newspaper because it was the only option are abandoning the medium, leaving the core who truly enjoy the medium for its own sake. Newspapers will have to become smaller as their markets shrink, but if they are clever, they will scale to their audience (and tailor their content to their audience). Here in Houston, there is a local newspaper/current events mag called Free Press which is wildly successful and has almost 100% readership among the hip young things. It's free to pick up, which is a difference, but it, like the old grey ladies, is supported mainly by ads.

I think there's an opportunity for the quality of journalism to INCREASE, but only if the newspapers are spun off from the giant lobby-funding conglomerates they're currently owned by, and taken up by people who care about actual journalism and who appreciate the hedonic value of reading an honest-to-god newspaper. There will obviously still have to be a web presence, but the two can be done as a value-added proposition, the way modern indie record companies give you a code for a free digital download when you buy the vinyl album.

Subscribe to the physical paper, get free online access with the iPhone app.

That's what I'm seeing here too. Our traditional newspapers are shrinking, and the niche papers are booming. We have several small run papers that can be found all over town in various bars, restaurants, and boutique stores. They're free, and people these days are used to free things like this. They get their revenue from advertisers, and the advantage to the advertiser is that issue will sit on the stands for a month or more, instead of being thrown out the next day. They also are filled with articles that aren't so timely, like traditional newspapers. An article on what Donald Trump tweeted yesterday is only relevant for about 24 hours. It has no lasting value. It's just salacious junk food meant to get a reaction out of you. It has no real value. If you don't believe me, buy a traditional newspaper and keep it for a year. Pull it out and reread it, one year to the day, and see how much of that information still is important. On the other hand, an article about a new up and coming local band can be an interesting read even a year from now. It retains its value for much longer. It may not seem as important on its face, but once the hype and politics are stripped away, you'll find it actually is more important. It's a weird concept, I know. But that's why traditional newspapers are failing. It's not that they've suddenly become irrelevant, it's that they've been becoming increasingly irrelevant for decades now, ever since the radio was invented. They're only just now starting to feel that way. If we need to know something important, we get it through a faster medium. If we want to know something more in depth, we get it from a slower medium (books, monthly magazines, documentaries, etc.).

In any event, now that everyone has cell phones on them at all times, perhaps it's time for the "on the scene" reporter and photographer to die off. Recording injustice, tragedy, wrongdoing, miracles, etc. is all of our responsibility now. We are all reporting the news, which is probably a good thing, and it helps to wrestle control from the hands of the rich and powerful. Media is a branch of government (maybe not officially) that all of us can participate in. If nothing else, it should make people more skeptical of the news they consume (which we should have been all along). Besides, journalism photography doesn't have to be good photography. It just has to be accurate and timely.

 

[BrianShaw]

Newspaper photography is not self-destructing. It is being killed by the bean counters.

Same thing happening with corporate photography.

 

[guangong]

Some newspapers, the New York Times is a prime example, shot them selves in the foot by doctoring news (the first example that comes to mind is the soldier’s letter they “edited” to read contrary to the writer’s intentions) in order to promote their political agenda. In the digital age many such stories in the Times were revealed as bogus within an hour of their appearance. Prestigious advertising went elsewhere because the impression of truthfulness previously associated with the NYT was lost. Not all newspapers are losing subscribers...the WSJ has increasing print and digital readers.
Looking at the NYT and how it missed the boat. Many people didn’t buy the Times for the articles any more than the readers of Playboy; many bought the Times because at one time it had the best classifieds for jobs and apartment rentals for the NYC area. Had the Times savvy it would now be Craig’s list.
Also, as already noted, the appetite for news has changed. The idea seems to be that the pictures must be tacky in content.
I still prefer to read a real newspaper than a computer screen.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Making a living in photography has been killed by GWCs.

 

[Colin Corneau]

That's what I'm seeing here too. Our traditional newspapers are shrinking, and the niche papers are booming. We have several small run papers that can be found all over town in various bars, restaurants, and boutique stores. They're free, and people these days are used to free things like this. They get their revenue from advertisers, and the advantage to the advertiser is that issue will sit on the stands for a month or more, instead of being thrown out the next day. They also are filled with articles that aren't so timely, like traditional newspapers. An article on what Donald Trump tweeted yesterday is only relevant for about 24 hours. It has no lasting value. It's just salacious junk food meant to get a reaction out of you. It has no real value. If you don't believe me, buy a traditional newspaper and keep it for a year. Pull it out and reread it, one year to the day, and see how much of that information still is important. On the other hand, an article about a new up and coming local band can be an interesting read even a year from now. It retains its value for much longer. It may not seem as important on its face, but once the hype and politics are stripped away, you'll find it actually is more important. It's a weird concept, I know. But that's why traditional newspapers are failing. It's not that they've suddenly become irrelevant, it's that they've been becoming increasingly irrelevant for decades now, ever since the radio was invented. They're only just now starting to feel that way. If we need to know something important, we get it through a faster medium. If we want to know something more in depth, we get it from a slower medium (books, monthly magazines, documentaries, etc.).

In any event, now that everyone has cell phones on them at all times, perhaps it's time for the "on the scene" reporter and photographer to die off. Recording injustice, tragedy, wrongdoing, miracles, etc. is all of our responsibility now. We are all reporting the news, which is probably a good thing, and it helps to wrestle control from the hands of the rich and powerful. Media is a branch of government (maybe not officially) that all of us can participate in. If nothing else, it should make people more skeptical of the news they consume (which we should have been all along). Besides, journalism photography doesn't have to be good photography. It just has to be accurate and timely.

One look at social media and the sub-literate who inhabit it should dissuade anyone of any ideas that "everyone can be a reporter"...god help society if we rely on the average dope - with no ethical or professional responsibilities, standards or accountability - to deliver news.