Neil Burgess on the death of Photojournalism

We have now reached the stage where magazine supplements offer me less for a story which might be used over a cover and eight pages than their associated papers pay me for a single picture of a celebrity. The picture editors shrug and say, “This is just the way it is.” But, it is an active decision that has been taken by the managing editors who believe that photojournalism is not valued, it can be got for free, and so needs no budget. Money is still around in newspapers, it’s just that it’s spent on other things.

I woke up this morning with a dream going around in my head. It was as if I’d been watching a medical drama, ER or something, where they’d spent half the programme trying to revive a favourite character: mouth to mouth, blood transfusions, pumping the chest up and down, that electrical thing where they shout “Clear!” before zapping them with 50,000 volts to get the heart going again, emergency transplants and injections of adrenalin …, but nothing works. And someone sobs, “We’ve got to save him we cannot let him die.” And his best friend steps forward, grim and stressed and says, “It’s no good. For God’s sake, somebody call it!”

Okay, I’m that friend and I’m stepping forward and calling it. “Photojournalism: time of death 11.12. GMT 1st August 2010.” Amen.

<A href="">Neil Burgess on the death of Photojournalism.</a>

Sad but true. But I have to say there is a glimmer of hope and that is the iPad / tablet computers. I know I have said it before, but you just can not fuck around with shitty images on those things. Plus it seems like people are willing to shell out $5 a issue for it. That is some serious revenue for the magazines who no longer have to print and ship dead trees around.

VIA wood s lot who proves yet agin he is a much netter blogger then I.