Is Photojournalism a dying art?

[Baitball Blogger]

That picture taken at the moment that changes everything for everyone around them. I think I saw more of it back when newspapers ruled and expert photographers were capable of capturing more in black and white than most digital camera are able to do today.

Anyway, I met this one photojournalist who worked for a Boston paper. My friend told me he had won three Pulitzer prizes and after looking up his winning photos, I knew that I would post about him on DU one day. This is that day:

He won two Pulitzers back to back.

The First one involved a fire escape that dismantled during a fire rescue, killing a young mother who fell to her death. Because of that photo, code for fire escapes were established.




The second one involved racial strife during the busing era.



More info on the first two Pulitzers.
https://www.pulitzer.org/article/and-then-fire-escape-let-go

I haven't been able to locate the third Pulitzer photo, but here's a shoot that Stan himself felt like he was there in the moment.

https://niemanreports.org/articles/stanley-forman/

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Wow, the second photo is just like the violent insurrectionists January 6, 2021. . . . nt

[EYESORE 9001]

2. No wonder flags are so popular with faux patriots

The poles can be used as spears or cudgels.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. Right?

That's what struck me. That photo says it all. We're all fighting the same battle.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. As to title question, no. You pose the question and present no evidence

Take a look at the annual collections posted by Reuters and other outlets and award agencies you will find excellent photojournalism.

https://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photocontest/2021
https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/year-in-review-2021-in-100-photos-idUSRTS42ESW

Reuters has a top pictures of the day page: https://www.reuters.com/pictures

Simply posting two outstanding photos from the 1970s does not constitute evidence. You present no studies, no statistics, no careful comparisons.



However, you probably could make a case that reporters with cameras are no substitute for dedicated photojournalists and that there are fewer photojournalists. A few screen captures from some video is not photojournalism, as you would be able to explain to anyone.

Further, appreciation for still photography has gone down hill. There are more images around us than ever before in history, but fewer people seem to understand why one photograph is better than another, despite the fact that the other one has a puppy in it. Excuse me, a "pupper", for those who think the word "puppy" isn't cute enough.

Here: a modern B&W photo you might recognize:

[Baitball Blogger]

5. Def the Jan. 6th photo with Eugene Goodman meets the grade.

But some of the other photos didn't hit the level of emotion that I was expecting.

[usonian]

7. I remember those photos. I was living in the Boston area at the time.

What HAS changed, IMO, is that newspapers curated news, so that great photos popped to the top.

Now, everyone with a phone is a photographer, and there have been world-changing events recorded. World-changing because they were recorded.

But since the internet, and its degradation (due to advertising, IMO) into "quantity (virality) wins and quality doesn't matter (unless it's viral)", there is little or no curation.

Personally, I use DU to curate (aggregate, with some community standards and moderation) mostly-political news links and snippets, and Hacker News to aggregate techie links, with only one-line descriptions. (which are usually enough to let me decide whether or not to follow up)

Between the two, I have almost everything covered.

But as to photo-journalism, well, in the age of community sourcing, and news staff being starved, I haven't seen great news photos pop to the top. Despite concentration into a handful of giant sites.

We had a damn good thing going in Boston, with Stan Forman and Arthur Griffin (whom I met). IIRC, Arthur worked for the Coast Guard district office behind a desk, doing his great photo work on weekends.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. Thanks for that information!

There is just something about those photos that really grabs you. And, yes, the newspapers knew how to highlight them.

[Donkees]

6. In 1979, Forman's photography staff at the Boston Herald American won a Pulitzer Prize ...

In 1979, Forman's photography staff at the Boston Herald American won a Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography for coverage of the Blizzard of 1978 in Boston. However, Forman did not take any photographs that led to the award because he was recovering from an Achilles tendon injury. The following year, he was named a Nieman Fellow and was honored with the Joseph A. Sprague Memorial Award from the National Press Photographers Association.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Forman

[Baitball Blogger]

9. That must be the source of the third Pulitzer.

The first two were taken around 1976.

I understand that he has been taking photos of seal that swam in the Beverly Harbor.

https://whdh.com/news/seal-takes-a-swim-in-beverly-pond/

[Donkees]

10. Yes, 'He shared in the winning of a third Pulitzer Prize with the photography staff members...'

He shared in the winning of a third Pulitzer Prize with the photography staff members of the newspaper for their photo-coverage of the Blizzard of ’78.

https://www.massbroadcastershof.org/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-2016/stanley-forman/