Every time i pick up an issue of National Geographic, i find the most interesting and untold stories. Besides the stories i’ve heard of them not paying much to photographers, does anyone know how it’s fairing in all this?

Commander, Good luck with that. Like herding squirrels, wearing sunglasses. With blinders on the sides of the glasses.

At the time, Richard A. Rowland, head of Metro Pictures, is said to have observed, “The inmates are taking over the asylum.”

Maybe it’s time that photographers take it upon themselves to take control, and revolutionize the way that images are distributed.

Do people thing that the same thing happening to newspapers will eventually happen to monthly niche title magazines?
And what is to happen to photo editors when social media becomes the editor?

As a photographer, editors have grteat value, becuase they’re not emothionally attached to your work and won’t pick the shot you worked hardest to get, just becuase of that. Is society to become the world’s photo editor?

As you might remember, WWW was originally established for the free exchange of information between universities and scientists. The principle of “publishing to the WWW is free” was always at the very heart of the WWW, it is a basic expectation, the core rule. In my opinion, no company can change that.

I think the problem is, that WWW was not created with the business opportunities in mind. It was not planned originally that WWW should provide commercial publishing. Of course, some people came with the way of monetization content published on the WWW, but not in the area of mainstream news. Maybe it is even not possible.

I am not aware of any publisher or owner who have shared the wealth and I don’t expect them to do so in the future. Why should they? Regardless of the cost to them for delivery or whatever information delivery model they embrace, media is still controlled by publicly traded companies. And the bottom line with these folks is shareholder satisfaction.

I think one of the biggest negative impacts upon newspapers has been Craigslist.com. Why place ads in a paper, when you can run them for free on-line? Owning a portal like Craigslist, any media company could crush their competition, which might be why Craigslist is not privately owned.

In the end, I don’t see newspapers being saved, with a few exceptions. Rather than regional or city papers, we may be left with national papers. Fewer choices, but few enough to survive. This is what I see as a real solution.

The biggest losers in all of this are journalists and photojournalists. They will be left with a profession that is no longer sustainable. As soon as the veterans die or retire, there will be no incentive for new professionals to begin. That leaves news images to citizen journalism.

Freedom of the Press can involve risks. Who will take those risks, when there is no gain, nor compensation?

Back in the day the owner was also the editor. I’m fine if we go back to that.

Define modest. And why should the owners take a modest salary. They’re the one taking the risks. The reason to be an owner and not an employee is so that you don’t have to suffer a concussion when hitting that ceiling.

Debra Weiss

Now do we remain in denial of what is happening all around us, and, as a result, concede control of our futures to entities that just have the bottom line as their motivation, or do we face up to these rapidly evolving and proliferating issues, and tackle them collectively, meaningfully, and, hopefully, in a way that retains some level of control for our profession?

A few days ago I was meeting with a client and telling her about a project I was working on and considering pitching to a couple of magazines. She went to her coffee table, grabbed one of the magazines and displayed her frustration at how it didn’t have anything of substance, but rather a lot of fluff. These brilliant publishers just don’t get it. People want to read and see something interesting!

I’m excited at the possibilities of new media. We’re all going to suffer some severe blows, but I sincerely believe that there’s a great future ahead once we figure out how to do it right.

Why have micro payments? What about the option that has made billions for TV? Give away a demanding product and let the advertisers pay for it.

Several people could live a year off the cost of one page of advertising in one issue Time.

2. The cost to deliver the exact same product electronically should be a fraction of the printed version (I’m thinking 1/10th). If you’d like to buy me a computer (or other hand held delivery device) and pay my ISP bill each month then I’ll agree to the normal cost. Otherwise pass the savings I just gave you back to me.

Or, they can charge the same amount and actually get photographers a bit closer to what they should be paid. But of course, that will not happen.

Debra Weiss