Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/08/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]When I referred to adjunct "corporate work" I intended to mean commercial work which pays far more than corporate media pays for editorial work. So if we're doing annual report work for Enron for $35,000 will we also do an expos? on Enron for $3,000? (pardon the hypothetical - yet, that's the paradox) As far as "they" I assume you mean the mass market. It would seem that we must seek and develop the smaller markets which do have an interest in deep news and stories. Just yesterday - I had this OMG reaction to Huffington Post's current headlines - the majority of which look like tabloid bull s**t. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Aug 10, 2009, at 3:04 PM, Phil Swango wrote: > Point taken, but all those Life Magazine photogs we so admire > worked for > Time, Inc. Even Walker Evans worked for Fortune. Newspaper > photogs work > for corporations too. > > As for as what the readership wants, they want celebrity news and > photos. > They would *way* rather see a blurry phonecam snap of Britney's > (bleep) or > Michael Jackson's surgically manufactured grimace than any Salgado > essay > about ecological damage in the Amazon. Newspapering's a tough > business > these days.