“I think that in this urgent conversation, we forget … [that] a writer is not a photographer is not a copy editor is not an editor is not an ad salesman. In “traditional’ journalism,” those things hung in a kind of balance. Maybe imperfectly, but functionally.”

I have noticed that in the “new journalism”, one is expected to not only write, but also shoot, design, and advertise their work. While this is fine for some who are multi-talented, it makes it far more difficult for someone who only wants to focus on one or two aspects of journalism, and I’m not sure that’s a good thing. Being multi-talented is good, but it has its costs. If you have to spend time designing, shooting, and advertising as well as writing, none of them will be done as well or as thoroughly as if your job was only to do one of them. In requiring this multi-faceted approach, we are also in effect choosing quantity over quality.

I suspect that what is going to happen, at least in the short run, is that while the *quantity* of material produced will go up, the quality will go down. When you require a writer to learn to take photos, you take time away from his development as a writer, and as a result, he is not as good a writer. You may get a lot of Dean Koontzes this way, but no Hemingways. Likewise, a photographer who is also expected to write may end up with abilities more in line with a small-town photojournalist than someone like, say, James Nachtway.

I’ve seen this happening with myself. In college I focused on photojournalism, but I also took significant courses in written journalism, documentary video work, and design. Sure, having all those under my belt to varying degrees makes me more “employable”, but I also feel that in splitting my attention between such varied disciplines, I have not been able to give any one of them the attention they deserve.