We've been looking at this book 'Bending the Frame', a book written by Ritchin based around photojournalism and documentary photography. He looks at many aspects but some parts in particular are of interest to this current project.
He talks about how photojournalism will change with the world and how once upon a time the job of a photojournalist was to simply record an event 'with the hope—and frequently the expectation—that people and their governments would be moved to respond to the injustices pictured'. (http://www.aperture.org/shop/books/bending-the-frame-fred-ritchin-books#sthash.taFMYxwO.dpuf)
There used to be a time when one could show people a photograph and the image would have the weight of evidence—the “camera never lies.” Certainly photography always lied, but as a quotation from appearances it was something viewers counted on to reveal certain truths. The photographer’s role was pivotal, but constricted: for decades the mechanics of the photographic process were generally considered a guarantee of credibility more reliable than the photographer’s own authorship."
(http://lightbox.time.com/2013/05/29/what-a-photograph-can-accomplish-bending-the-frame-by-fred-ritchin/#ixzz2pe8xjGaa)
I found the above very interesting as it's true in many aspects of photography. The whole basis of photojournalism has always been to report, photographers were considered visual reporters sharing the issues with the wider world that would otherwise go un noticed in a hope that change happens or a resolution is reached. In modern day media some photojournalism can be looked upon as strategic, photographers are paid by the likes of the Guardian to go and photograph a war. They return with photographs of how terrible the war is but that it is necessary, they show pictures of the enemy maybe using child soldiers so that the general public think it's just cause for the barbaric war. A photograph in a newspaper is now just as crafted as the article is accompanies. Photographs are taken in a way to reflect an idea or enforce a belief. 'We should be fighting this was because look how terrible things are here, look at what they are doing to children of that country' How much of what we are seeing is the true story?
Ritchin talks about reporting by the general public, the 'smartphone reporter' make photojournalism like every other form of social media, very easily accessible. It's so easy to share a photo of breaking news these days that several people are doing it, mostly for free. Does this water down true photojournalism? Are paid photojournalists going to take a hit because of these modern developments? No one can really say but it is now harder than ever to get 'real news' through the 'media haze'. How can a photojournalist create an engaging and informed piece of the conflict in Syria, which will influence the public, when there are so many stories cropping up and being covered by 'smartphone reporters'.
In the below interview he talks about his reasons for creating the book and in particular his interest in 'projects that attempt to be useful in society, rather than simply to make a news splash' - After all isn't this what photojournalism should really be about? We have all this technology to share things globally in seconds so surely we can get together and say 'These reports on poverty, aids, war are shocking, lets do something about it'?
