I googled “The future of newspapers”.
The first story I read (from Time Magazine) started out: “The word newspaper is going to disappear.”
Further down in the article is a line that explains quite a lot: “The cost to reach 1,000 people is $20 for newspapers, but just $5 for those online.”
And: “Today, teens don't read newspapers and they never will. If there were a newspaper strike across America today, almost no one under the age of 30 would notice.”
What started me thinking about this stuff is my visit yesterday to the Lexington Herald-Leader where I worked for 18 years. I’m back in Kentucky for a 12 day Christmas visit with family and friends and you know what? It really is hard to go back. It’s hard to go back to the place I once worked and see the shell-shocked faces of former co-workers who have fresh memories of the latest round of layoffs. The photographers no longer blame my departure for increasing their workload, now they say I may have saved a job by leaving.
I find it intolerably sad to see this once-great industry die a slow death this way. I have had a wonderful career, full of exciting memories. I talk with many young photographers who hope for the same kind of career and sometimes I don’t know what to tell them. What kind of career will they have in this fast changing world? Should I tell them to turn back now while they can and go into something more marketable?
But then I think, there will always be news and when there is news, people will always want to see pictures of it. The trick is to stay on top of the ever-changing ways of delivering it. We may not view those pictures in a newspaper in the future (as sad as that makes me feel). Our news consumption may be entirely web-based or there may be other technologies yet to be revealed. The important thing is to stay flexible and keep up with it.
For now, learn all you can, shoot video as well as still, stay fluent on the web and keep your eye on the future—there will be photography there somewhere.