I respect newspapers, but the reality is that magazine 'photojournalism' is finished. They want illustrations, Photoshopped pictures of movie stars.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Now if you look at the London 'Times,' you'll find that with quite a number of the photographs, you touch them, and they turn into videos. I think newspapers come alive that way. We talk about 'papers.' We should cut out the word 'paper,' you know? It's 'news organizations.'
If I wasn't a comic or TV star, I really wanted to be a photojournalist.
Magazines that depend on photography, and design, and long reads, and quality stuff, are going to do just fine despite the Internet and cable news.
The advantage of taking pictures of the famous is that they get published.
Sometimes in news photography and so on, the pictures are a little bit dry, and put on the page and just set in a journalistic way in front of you.
I admit that I am hopelessly hooked on the printed newspaper. I love turning the pages and the serendipity of stumbling across a piece of irresistible information or a photograph that I wasn't necessarily intending to read.
Great journalism will always attract readers. The words, pictures and graphics that are the stuff of journalism have to be brilliantly packaged; they must feed the mind and move the heart.
Journalists have made celebrities into an industry.
I never understood why anyone would do magazines. Like, why would someone put their face out there so much? It's because those people reading magazines will go see the movie, so you do it.
People in the fashion industry have used the press a lot more than people in the film industry, because you have nothing to sell except for the image: The image is everything.
No opposing quotes found.