If film had been as easy to carry and use as CF cards, the same thing would have happened when they were using film. We are really talking about human discipline here, not the medium of capture. There is not much to say, except that people are people. They walk on tight ropes and stretch things to the max with wretched excess as long as they can get away with it. Digital, being materially cheaper, makes it easier to make an argument as to why one should get away with this.
If I was on a half-year assignment and had only to carry CF cards, and not film, I would probably shoot more than average. I would be surrounded by interesting and unfamiliar things, people, and situations, so would likely be clicking away. It is really up to the editors to control their shooters in the end. I would venture to guess that this can be difficult from half a world away.
Do I agree that journalistic photographers are largely hacks nowadays? Absolutely. However, in the end, you need to just pick up the magazine, sit down, and enjoy it. How Joe Photographer works is up to him and his editors. If you don't like it, become a NG editor.
Quite honestly, I am more concerned about how their style of writing has become more informal and subjective in the past 10-20 years, and how the air of elitism is gone from the magazine. The magazine was one of the last quality formal documentary publications, and they have just cheapened it with stylistic and other changes, such as offering it in newsstands instead of by membership only. They had to diversify their audience to stay alive, and this, of course, led to content changes. I still like it, but it is much more of a McMagazine then it ever has been, IMO.
...and I am still upset about the NY Times printing in color as well.
BTW, NG is largely contributor based. Why don't you put together an expedition and submit? No one is stopping you.
