The death of photojournalism (again).

It seems like photojournalism is like one of those celluloid zombies - you can keep on blasting away but the brainless lumbering hulk just refuses to accept it's dead.

Here's yet another article on the subject from Neil Burgess that's doing the rounds.

Actually, I happen to agree with him on one particular point - most of what is called photojournalism these days is just photographers illustrating articles. I certainly do plenty of that myself. The journalism industry seems to be writer driven. I think that's one thing that could change as video becomes more and more prominent on the web.

But visual journalism is not dead, it's just underfunded and oversubscribed. In fact, it was always underfunded, but the pot isn't getting any bigger and there's a big crowd round the rim.

It seems like a lot of conversations I have these days are about getting paid. Thankfully, I don't think photojournalism - or visual journalism - is dead. I just think it's a tough job to earn a living at. But then if you want an easy job that's well paid, you should go work in a bank.

And who in their right mind would want to do that?

No comments: