Wow, someone has said something substantive about photojournalism.

Tom Hubbard
Ohio State School of Journalism and Communication, Emeritus
hubbard.1@osu.edu

Don Winslow defines the problem as economic. Prof. John Freeman defines the solution as satisfaction. I'm going to squeeze in the middle of these two guys just enough to irritate both of them. Stay tuned. I may irritate you too. I glanced at Susan Markisz' response but am waiting to read it until I send this response. A four way discussion might be too complicated.

First, Winslow was wise to frame his arguments as economic arguments. On our hierarchy of needs, economics (buying food, cars, jeans) is more important than some sort of mushy "satisfaction."

Economics has a headline quality to it. Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." Moderns, especially journalists say, "If it's a headline, it's important in the grand scheme of things." (Headline writers might rue their influence. A headline writer once told me, "If you know how we got these things, you wouldn't take them so seriously.)

But, photojournalists believe headlines, even headlines about their profession. Every cop/photojournalist incident is featured in "News Photographer." There's none of that mushy "satisfaction" stuff. So, Winslow shouts "economics" and everyone pays attention. He's made a headline out of a condition. That's good because, conditions are invisible until someone writes a headline.

What's wrong with the arguments by Winslow and Freeman? Winslow inadvertently makes his best economic argument with the photos he presents to illustrate his article. There are two photos of groups of photographers, one at a NFL game and one at a Washington appearance by Clinton. What is the argument in these photos? THE PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE ALL STANDING AT THE SAME PLACE! There is an economic lesson illustrated in these photos. Hey, gas gluts lower prices. It works with photographer gluts also. Freeman makes the same argument, in a different way, with the photos illustrating his response. Apparently, in Florida, interns follow the crowd to people in distress. Is there anything good going on in Florida? I know John Freeman. I'm sure he teaches a well rounded photojournalism curriculum. I visit Florida occasionally. I find good things. I stayed in a campground near Orlando last summer. Down and out, year round residents stopped by and told me the most amazing stories of human courage in adversity. There were people living for months in fold out camper trailers while looking for a job. There were divorcees struggling with child support and visitation rights. Who's telling that story about Florida? The photos John chose to illustrate his argument don't advance a satisfaction argument well. Isn't it perverse to be satisfied with chasing around looking for all those people in distress and taking their picture? Photography is strongest as a hunting activity, not a herd activity. Hunters look in new places as they exhaust a hunting area. Herds work toward agreement. You've seen film of schools of fish, all changing direction at the same time. How do they do it? I think they learn it from photojournalists.

The story of our culture just isn't being told in photographs. Look closely at the streams of photos coming into your newsroom from world services. They tell us of wars, celebrities and sports and important people going in and out of buildings.

What's wrong with these pictures? They are copy pictures! Someone else has done all the work, the athletes, celebrities, important people. A photographer wouldn't feel comfortable with credit for a straight copy of a painting or another photo. But, photographers are comfortable with credit for copying athletes, celebrities and important people. Photojournalism is dying because photojournalists are not contributing anything new. Who needs more than an equipment hauler if there's not going to be a creative contribution? I know, it's unfair to expect creative contribution from a newspaper industry. It's an industry that's only had two collective creative ideas in the last few decades...copy "USA Today" and copy TV news. The next big winner in journalism will be someone who sells the idea of finding fresh subject matter.

Photography is an economic anachronism in modern times because each photo is a unique, handmade object. That strength is wasted when 50 photographers line up in a herd. Look how industry and the culture work to eliminate the contribution of human hands. Cars are made by robots. You are probably the first human touch a potato when you take it out of the bag The same forces that removed all those hands from potatoes are working to remove the individual human touch in photography. If there are more than ten photojournalists standing beside you on assignments, think of all the unique subjects you are missing. Everyone seems locked into the mode of overkill one story per day, while ignoring the rest of the world. I live in this world. It's not that simple.

So Winslow and Freeman have hit on two crucial concepts for the future of photojournalism. Winslow's is economic. Freeman's is satisfaction. They are both right. Creatively active photographers are satisfied with their work and they make money.