As Fairfax cuts photographers, what price for a news picture?
In this cross-posting from The Conversation Andrea Carson of the University of Melbourne asks how far outsourcing can go with quality newspapers.
You know the adage: a picture is worth a thousand words. News photographs can capture a story’s emotion whether it is sport, politics or human tragedy. Think of the 1983 America’s Cup win. Prime Minister Bob Hawke wearing an ear-to-ear grin and that loud Australia jacket more like wrapping paper than clothing.
Or Nicky Winmar in 1993 lifting his St Kilda footie jumper with his middle finger pointing to his bared flesh to protest against racism. Who can forget the image of Kevin Rudd with tear-stained cheeks when he lost the prime ministership after a backroom coup in 2010; or Damien Oliver pointing his whip to the sky after winning the 2002 Melbourne Cup to salute his dead brother?
But in the third cost cutting announcement since 2012, Fairfax Media now sees the role of the staff photographer as dispensable after this week proposing to shed 75 per cent of its snappers across its metropolitan mastheads. It intends to outsource photography to picture agency Getty Images.
This is the wrong question. What Fairfax cannot explain is where they aim to finish. Hywood says on one hand the business of independent journalism is a vital community asset. On the other he describes a future of content marketing, events and real estate advertising.
If Fairfax shareholders were paying attention they would see the inherent conflict.
If the management was paying attention they would see the likely point at which the “cost out” culture they brag about is no solution to the declining revenues and profit.
The examples of conflict of interest highlighted in the Oz gossip pages today are real and serious. They would never be tolerated in a reputable news media business. Which is why people who know the business have given up on Fairfax.
It is really said to watch, but I cant help but feel that the management are smply not the right people.
Surely great news brands will be valuable because of the distinctive and value-adding POV they layer over commodity news content. Like The Economist. And in the world of tablets in particular, surely image making has at least the same role to play in demonstrating this POV as writing…
Or, is the point this – how much is the reader prepared to pay for great photos (or journalism for that matter)? And clearly the answer is “not very much”. Sadly, the audience want their news for free these days and appear happy to wear crappy images and wire service news as a consequence.