Internet Photojournalism Q's and A's

As you can imagine, this is a topic near and dear to my heart, as Internet Photojournalism is a field I entered in 1996 when I departed the print journalism field. I won't pull an Al Gore and claim I invented Internet Photojournalism, but I did coin the term "Internet Photojournalist" for myself when I first launched this site, and haven't seen anyone else use it -- yet.

Why did you decide to have your own photojournalism site published on the web? How long have you been on the web? Are you on the web primarily because you are want to offer an alternative forum in which to publish, or for other reasons?

I launched my site in late 1996 or early 1997, not sure of the exact date, as a vehicle to make my personal transition from print to web photojournalism. I coined the term Internet Photojournalist to describe what I do: offer my talents as a web site builder and designer with a background of writing and photography talents. I perceive my strength lies in my experience of layout and design in the print world, as well as writing/photography, to separate myself from the ever-growing horde of web designers. I heard the saying recently "web designers are a dime a dozen" and while that may be true, web designers with any real experience of layout and design are more rare.

Do you think the news magazines have turned to soft news? If so, why?

News magazines, if you refer to print mags, have most definitely gone soft, with old stalwarts of the print world such as Time and Newsweek trying to reinvent themselves as People or something similar and slicker. The reason is obvious. Readership for hard news is drying up and in a move for survival they turn to the younger generations which their polls or other sources tell them are too dense to want hard news. I hope they're wrong, but what does an old news junkie know about young readers' tastes?

What are the main contributing factors (aside from capitalistic reasons) responsible for the rise of self-published photojournalists on the web?

Simple economics. You don't need a printing press or the big bucks to be able to print and distribute a magazine or newspaper to publish on the web. Freedom of the press belonged to those who owned the presses, or could afford to rent them -- until along came the World Wide Web. "Information wants to be free" is perhaps the saga of the entire WWW. So I guess my answer is "capitalistic reasons" was and is the main contributing factor for most sites, mine included.

But in my case, I have also been motivated by a desire to communicate a greater truth with my photos and writing, the greatest truth of all time -- that God loves us enough to send His Son down to earth to die for our sins. And the truth of Christ's life, death and resurrection is the life-changing truth I wish to communicate to as many as I can, through my site and by my life.

How did your career begin in photojournalism (did you start working in print first), and what has changed since you went into publishing on the web?

I started in print media and stayed with newspapers until the weeklies I loved died under me. When the third horse in a row I was riding died in the saddle in 1996, I decided that was a sign from on high it was time to change fields. So I didn't as much plan to leave print journalism as it left me -- high and dry. And I've never regretted the change for a minute. As usual, it was the Good Lord looking out for this fool when I had to leave newspapers.

As for changes, the evolution of my photoj sites page reflects growth in both the quality and quantity of photoj web publishing. My initial list had maybe a dozen sites, and that has grown to the current page of 71 links, which is so large it takes longer to load the page than I prefer. I have tried to avoid growing larger with the last few updates, adding new links and deleting a similar number.

I noticed that your photojournalist zine links have a few controversial photographs posted on the sites, namely of the transgendered photo essay on the foto8 site titled "He was my son..my daughter." What have the readers' reactions been like?

The photoj sites page of links is actually the first page with which I launched my site and I have definitely seen a big increase in both the volume and the quality of photoj sites I have been able to find and add to my list since its start in '96-97. I have generally found sites on my own with search engines, but have had some requests by photographers for inclusion. I judge those on the basis of their work and have only rejected a couple at most. My criterion is the whole of a photographer's work, and while I try to stay away from controversial materials generally -- such as nudity for the sake of nudity and most definitely porn of any stripe -- I will include a site with some controversial content if I feel it has merit.

However, once I include a site, I don't monitor it regularly for changes in content. I'm overdue to check the sites on my list and add some new ones, and delete any old ones that are either gone or out of date. If I find a site has changed during these periodic reviews, I would drop it if I feel that was merited, but I have yet to do that to any I have added.

I really don't want to be a censor or traffic cop, but I do have an obligation to my visitors to maintain some standards on my list of sites. And as to readers' reactions, they have all been positive so far.

In the case of the foto8 essay you refer to, real life gets very gritty at times, and that reporting on a murder case in Texas is pretty gritty indeed. But I've covered news over my career that was as bad or worse.

What kind of target market does your site focus on and what is the readership like? How many users have visited your site since inception?

The target market for my site initially and still is customers for my web services primarily, my writing and photography skills secondarily. Third on the list is the enjoyment of my work by site visitors.

I don't have a clue how many visitors have seen my site. I changed web hosts in 1999, and only have stats since May 1999. Statistics for 2000 through October show about 10,000 "sessions" which is the closest statistic to visitors my service provides. I had about 1,400 sessions in October 2000, compared to about 700 in October 1999, so traffic on my site -- and the Web as a whole -- continues to increase exponentially. Pageviews for the same two months are 2,400 for October 2000 vs. 1,500 for October 1999, so that indicates that while more people are visiting my site, they're not viewing as many pages per visit as the year previous. Guess I'm slipping, or in the parlance of the day, my site isn't as "sticky" as it used to be. Or maybe I'm getting return visitors who are only looking at new content. Who knows? Statistics can only tell you so much.

How do you determine the success rate of johnmyers.com?

If I measure success in terms of financial survival, the site has worked because I have managed to stay in work more or less constantly since its launch, so I could say it has accomplished its intended goal, to market my services.

If I measure success in terms of people influenced, or even one person who has been uplifted and pointed toward the Lord Jesus, then I'll have to wait to see what Jesus says about that. But if I have influenced even one person to see the brighter way that leads home, I have been successful.