Why I'll never become a photojournalist

[azonicbruce]

It's been awhile since I've visited here, but I thought I'd share this article that I recently wrote for my website of an incident that happened to me quite a few years ago. It's entitled "Why I'll never become a photojournalist" You can guess what it's about.

I am in no way trying to offend any of you real photojournalists that may be out there, just simply sharing the experience I had and my feelings at the time. In fact, I think I'd like to hear your opinions on what you think about it, and your own experiences in the field. For any other fellow photographers, I'd like to see what you think of how I wrote the article. I'm not really a "writer" but it'd be nice to see what others think, good or bad.

http://www.60hzproductions.com/index...d=25&Itemid=45

[Photo-John]

It's an entertainment business. That's the bottom line. Errrr - the bottom line is the bottom line. They want material that pays. It's unfortunate but true.

[Ronnoco]

Journalism has not changed. "If it bleeds, it leads.!" has always been the approach to news stories or video news. Politics is often toward the middle and business, fashion, and medicine discoveries toward the end.

Ronnoco

[schrackman]

I enjoyed reading your article, and I quite agree with you. Fortunately in our small town anything makes news and not just gory details.

Good writing, by the way, and great pictures.

[PrevailingConditions]

I have to confess that I have become very cynical of what I see in the "news". My perspective is that they're trying to sell advertising like every other medium out there. They do it in a slightly different way, but it all boils down to advertising dollars.

Moreover, I have come to the point where I discount a lot of what I see reported. I have seen too many cases where I have first hand knowledge about a story and what I know doesn't match at all with what is being reported. I don't think this is uncommon either. I recall a time when a bunch of us were sitting around discussing this and everyone had similar experiences.

PC

PS - Great shots!

[Max P D]

Azonicbruce, I hear what you are saying.

But, please consider this:

I understand why those people were upset (I would feel the same way) - a hard-won possession of theirs was going up in flames. Maybe it's something they labored very hard for to acquire. Maybe it will take them many years to pay off. Maybe it was something they couldn't afford in the first place, but they bought it on credit anyway. Maybe they can afford it, but it consumes a large part of their income...

I think what it really comes down to is it's just STUFF. It can be replaced. You know, unlike a family member.

And, that's why there is insurance.

I've been a so-called "photojournalist" for over 10 years and my paper also doesn't care about fender-benders or unoccupied burning vehicles, etc. unless there's the human element involved. Why? Because it's just STUFF, it can be replaced... It is that simple.

Sure, I understand why people are nauseated by this "When it Bleeds it Leads" mentality. If I never have to go to another accident/fire/drowning/tornado it will be too soon.

Would anyone have cared if terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center if they were empty? (both the planes and buildings)

Lastly, yes, newspapers/TV/radio/ "the media" are all about adverstising. I once had a photo I shot "bumped" and replaced with an ad for the "healing properties" of vinegar.

Best,
Dan

It's been awhile since I've visited here, but I thought I'd share this article that I recently wrote for my website of an incident that happened to me quite a few years ago. It's entitled "Why I'll never become a photojournalist" You can guess what it's about.

I am in no way trying to offend any of you real photojournalists that may be out there, just simply sharing the experience I had and my feelings at the time. In fact, I think I'd like to hear your opinions on what you think about it, and your own experiences in the field. For any other fellow photographers, I'd like to see what you think of how I wrote the article. I'm not really a "writer" but it'd be nice to see what others think, good or bad.

http://www.60hzproductions.com/index...d=25&Itemid=45

[CLKunst]

Hi Azonic Bruce~

I think Dan has explained it very well. Ultimately a car fire is a huge personal loss, but it's just stuff. To have these pics. published as a human interest story you would probably have to have had a related article about how the fire was; 1.) Caused by a factory default on the van that wasn't recalled and the owner's are suing the manufacturer. (That's a public service announcement.) or 2.)The owner's are suing the fire department over the loss of their vehicle due to their failure to respond quickly enough. Then your sequence of pics would have been most applicable as they not only show the progress of the fire but independently time code the response. (That's a local government concern.) or 3.) The van had been part of a terror plot. (Straight to the front of the line - but entirely fictional.)

Drama sells papers, and ad space and on the TV airtime. It also creates division, controversy and in extreme cases starts wars. (i.e.The Spanish American War - Remember the Maine!)

I live in the Washington D.C. area so our local news is quite often more about national news, since Congress, the Supreme Court and the President are in our backyard. I wish we could have a lot more stories in my area about how a car caught fire but everyone got OK, instead of 'There will be 2 days of protests in the city this week, please be advised of the following road closings for your morning commute'. (Not that's it's always like that here, just an example.)

Just my two cents on your question. I'm glad you took the pics and wrote this article. It's fabulous when people stand up for what they believe in. As a series I think they're very good.

Regards,

[MJS]

I started in the media business at a young age shooting grin and grabs for the local weekly and covering school events. I had to ride my bike since I was all of 10 at the time. The small, weekly was glad to run whatever they could get their hands on. Later on in high school, I covered fires and accidents while also volunteering for the local rescue squad. (Not at the same time, only when off duty). As the papers get bigger in circulation and market, they have less and less space for the softer side of news, especially since production costs are up. The ads win the space. Its too bad, if it bleeds it leads is a rotten way to judge what is newsworthy, but for now, it is the way things are done. Its becoming harder and harder for the printed word to maintain its edge, what with 24/7 news ops, the web etc.

[yogestee]

I'll put my few cents worth here..Working for a newspaper let me tell you one thing sensationalism sells papers and increases circulation...

We had an editor who was from the old school of journalism,,you know the kind, pounding away at a typewriter with a presscard in the band of his hat and a cig in his mouth..He was controversial, his editorials always borderline between the obscene and pure genius but boy,,could he sell newspapers..Love him or hate him readers would buy the paper just to read his editorial...Since his retirement we have gone from a hardcore newspaper to somewhat of an arty-farty magazine type spread with more lifestyle stories than news...And guess what,,circualtion has slumped...We have stopped the blood and guts ambulance chasing stories, road carnage etc..

What do readers really want?

Jurgen
Australia