> On pictures I agree of course that consumer technology is making the > equipment better and more accessible, but I would say this has been > happening for years and so maybe you underestimate the value of the > professional photographer or photo journalist. Most of us can't take photos > as well as a talented or trained photographer and there are places I would > not go, or be able to go, to get the photograph.
Yes, and I think there's a differences between a photographer and a photo journalist - in particular, as you say, ones sent to dangerous areas to record events. On the other hand, although I recognise that there absolutely is a great deal of skill in professional photography there is also a great deal of luck. You only have to look at proof sheets to see this. There may be a hundred photos for the one print. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I think amateur photographers can make this hit rate, in particular, as I said earlier, with basic photo editing knowledge (certainly phones already have the necessary functionality). This is, of course, assuming that you don't have just the one person taking pictures on their phone but, as with most events even now, more than half of the crowd. > Personally I think the technology is making it faster and easier for those > who do this work to deliver it to wider audiences while the value of their > role continues with a lower barrier to entry. I think there is value in the role, and perhaps what hasn't really come up, a value in the newsroom itself (or more specifically in a network of experienced, well-connected reporters and journalists) that is hard to replace. I do think there is an almost guaranteed role for visible, well-known political and financial correspondents (and possibly others) with whom politicians and companies can actually strike up a relationship. I also think newspapers have done themselves a severe disservice over the past decade in particular by becoming longer ([citation needed]) whilst lowering relative price to increase perceived value, whilst actually demeaning the good journalism that they actually do, and I think it's resulted in the opposite of what they intended by lowering the perceived value since their content now seems to massively overlap with that of the Metro. I think there's a quote from Andrew Neil here about John Witherow's achievements with The Sunday Times about this, if someone can remember it for me :) Obviously this has peaked recently with Flat Earth News, and I don't really know what can be done about it without someone willing to try actually cutting the length of the paper. With the recent bankruptcies in the US, how many newspapers do you think we'll have in twelve months' time? If the Kindle makes it to the UK should one of the papers just buy us all one? http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/printing-the-nyt-costs-twice-as-much-as-sending-every-subscriber-a-free-kindle Anyway, this all just rambling from me now, so I'll end :) Cheers, Phil - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
