There’s no question that photographs from this week's Republican National Convention, merely days after an assassination attempt on former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump, are going to define the narrative of this tumultuous time in U.S. history. There’s also no question about who overwhelmingly seems to dominate the photojournalism field based on this photo that I've linked to below: white men.
Take a look at the photo:
Early scenes from the Republican National Convention:
— Getty Images News (@GettyImagesNews) July 15, 2024
Don Jr. and Eric Trump face the media.
House Speaker Mike Johnson wields the gavel.
An attendee shows his Republican spirit, honestly.
Protestors demonstrate outside Fiserv Forum.
📸: @somogettynews, @andyharnik, @jraedle,… pic.twitter.com/k5AeDrZ8Ed
It was shot by Getty Images photographer Chip Somodevilla, who thought to get on the other side of Don Jr. and Eric Trump to photograph the gaggle of photographers from the other side. The photographers, about 23, or almost all of them that are visible in the photo, seem to be white males. There may have been a few minorities or other women in the group, but it’s hard to tell.
Regardless of what the exact count was, it’s stunning that news organizations don’t consider this when sending out photographers. Yes, news outlets have hit tough times, and those tough times disproportionately affect minorities in newsrooms, but it’s still something an editor should think about. This is even more important when it involves a presidential candidate that specifically targeted minorities when crafting policy as president.
The Somodevilla photo reveals that there’s still a huge gender/race gap in photojournalism. If you look at the list of reporters in the White House Press Corps (or at least the ones listed here), there’s a lack of diversity across the board. You can see that in the photographers that Getty images chose to highlight in its tweet.
When photographs disproportionately carry the collective consciousness and culture of a specific group, they in turn disproportionately bias their consumers toward that group's ideas on anything from sexuality to social habits. Culture feeds into art feeds into culture. Culture feeds into advertising feeds into culture. Culture feeds into journalism feeds into culture.
This particular photo from the Republican National Convention shows that, still, no one is listening.
Does This Sound Familiar?
If you’re a longtime reader of Fstoppers, maybe these words seem familiar to you? It’s because it’s almost exactly the same article I wrote seven years ago about another stunning New York Times photo, one of James Comey testifying in the Senate. And then again two years after that. And now.
It’s been five years since I last wrote about this, and the political press has seen it fit to not pursue diversity in their photojournalists. It’s a sad state of affairs when our history is photographically only told through the lenses of white men.
While I can understand that, perhaps, editors don't want to send minority and women photographers into certain situations, this kind of "benevolent paternalism" in handing out assignments benefits neither the careers of the photojournalists left out, nor the narrative of history that is created.
Representation matters in photojournalism. I'll keep writing this article until the industry gets there.
Photojournalism is not FOR anyone in particular ! It is for any one who picks up a camera and does Photojournalism ! In todays day and age if you want to do Photojournalism and don't you have no one to blame but yourself !! Why oh Why do people have to make everything about race??? Next you will be saying " Existing is still , mostly , for white people" !
The photographer is in every picture that they take. Their cultural background determines the projects they take, the pictures they snap, and the pictures they delete.
Could a white photographer have taken the same photos as Gordon Parks? Technically, I'm sure, but they never *would* have. They wouldn't have known the stories to tell or understood the culture enough to tell the story well. And if a photographer is from a different culture, they likely won't have a deep understanding of the subject's boundaries and the photographer can actually harm a subject when they intend to help.
It's not really about "race", though race is part of it. It's also about gender, age, cultural background, religion, personality, etc.
This is really not an issue with the color of one's skin... but culture would mater. It seems common for a left-leaning photographer to go for capturing a large number of red caps, people in cowboy hats, etc. at these events (and yes, there seems to be a lot of them)... while a right leaning photographer will take more images of purple-haired individuals at DNC events... A metro based photographer will go to the 'country' and take stereotypical images that really are not representative of most of those living there... and so on. I would say it would be great if the photos were coming from those who live in and around the areas and cultures they are photographing regardless of physical attributes of the photographer. As far as coving a top level politician, those guys are traveling with them all over the place and have a lot of experience capturing news worthy events every single time. If they were capturing the locals, it would be a different need and a local photographer would probably do a better job with representing the area. As far as getting more diversity into the press pool? ... that is a tough one as it seems to be hard for anyone regardless of physical attributes to get a good start in photojournalism today (for a salary, not freelance, etc.). You are correct about culture which includes gender, religion, etc.) but color of skin seems the least of these.
Charles Clark As a full-time photographer of 14 years, 3 years before that, and a professional photo writer 3 years, I have applied to Getty 3 times. Never gotten it. I've had my work posted by some of the most respected photographers such as Serena Williams, Adrian Peterson, Amanda Nunes and after the Olympics: Stef Curry. I was awarded the title of #5 sports photograoher in miami in 2021 and #4 in 2022. Lens magazine did a "sports issue" and included my work with a 13 page spread. I've applied 3 consecutive years to Getty sport and despite having all the required gear and experience I've never gotten it. Should I "blame myself"?
Since you asked…
Who do you want to blame, Michelle? You can blame Getty, but what does that accomplish? It probably won’t get you anywhere other than maybe the satisfaction from a little bit of self-pity, maybe some empathy from those readers here who sympathize with you. Neither of which get you any closer to being accepted into the agency. Which do you want? Vindication that it's not your fault because the cards are stacked against you, and proof that females are discriminated against in the industry? Or do you want your work eventually accepted at Getty Sports Images?
If you blame yourself and take personal responsibility, there’s at least a chance that the outcome will eventually work in your favor. But you’ll have to decide how to approach the problem. Maybe blame is not the right word, so instead of the other option of blaming yourself, you could ask why they reject your work. I don’t mean in just a cursory way, either. I mean by asking tough questions about your work. Does it fit with their needs? Have you asked them why it’s rejected? Have you asked for other photographer’s opinions about your work? Nobody should ever be too old, proud, or experienced to reach out for advice. I’m pretty sure that when many of us get to a certain level of career accomplishments, we think that our work is above reproach… worthy of respect and admiration from all who encounter it. But that’s not reality. Reality is that the rest of the world may feel that our images are just pretty ordinary. Competition in photography is fierce wherever you go. But if Getty Sports Images is the epitome of success in the sports photography business for you and that’s what you really want, don’t quit. Stop griping and keep working at it.
This last paragraph or two may be of help to you, or not. Some people recoil at unsolicited opinions of their photographs. I hope you don’t write this off as none of my business. But I’d like to offer a thought about your photography (as best I can see from your portfolio), and how I see it relating to Getty Sports Images. Your images are unquestionably professional. They’re technically proficient in exposure, lighting, color and composition. Your product photography and portraits are all made that way. I’m sure that your commercial photography is styled and designed according to yours or your client’s wishes. Your athletes are posed very nicely. They’re professional portraits made with flash or controlled lighting. They’re fine art; showing quite of lot of imagination, and maybe a bit of social commentary thrown in. Your images are wonderful for the purpose you created them. But I’m not sure that your style of work is a great fit for Getty Sports Images. Here’s why…
Getty Sports Images, from what I can see, offers primarily action shots – exceptionally good ones. They’re the kind of images where you can’t control posing, lighting or distractions. You have to extract a great picture out of difficult circumstances. Fans in the background. I don’t see your work in that light. You shape the impact of the photo from stylizing the subject. Your work begins with a thought, evolves through the design and composition, ending in a polished finished image. I can see you working all day setting up a shot. On the other hand, the sports action photographer has to consistently get the most impact where the best moment only lasts a split second… “the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat” as was coined by ABC Sports years ago has to show through in every photo. Drama is king; expressions make or break the image. The precise moment is critical to the success of the image. Their images are for stock photo sales. Your images are deeply personal and of most value to the specific client you make them for. So is Getty really the work you want, or is this just an ego thing? That’s the better question than who’s to blame. Either way, I wish you much success.
It isn't about race - it is about perspective.
To keep it simple, since you seem to be getting hung up on color of skin - take a person that grew up on a farm in the country, early mornings, feeding livestock, planting crops, harvest, etc, etc. Then take a person raised in the city, loud, lots of people, things within walking distance, etc, etc.
Those two people will look at the world in a completely different way. They will report on things in a different way. They will see different problems. Neither is wrong, they come from different places, they have different talents, they have different takes on things.
We should want to see different perspectives and hear how various paths of life led to different things, opportunities, challenges, etc. But instead - we have a comment area full of people further demonstrating WHY we need perspective as people are more concerned about DEI and shouting down the people with different experiences - whether it be socioeconomic, rural vs. urban, vs skin color, etc.
This comments section is embarrassing.
Politics seems like an embarrassment of riches, but here we are in 2024 with arguably the most embarrassing political speech and behavior that I've witnessed in my lifetime (speaking here in the US). Yet like a train wreck unfolding in front of our eyes, we can't stop watching the constant 24/7 cycle of speeches, events and news media analysis. And, funny too, that our sense of who's at fault for this embarrassing lot of candidates and election coverage is almost always driven from an ideological point of view. Some things never change. Perspectives have always been as diverse as the homes and communities from which they originate. Social media (including Fstoppers) simply gives a greater voice to those who previously could only sit at home and complain to a few close friends. For better or worse, maybe it's not so much embarrassing as it's a genuine reflection of humanity. And that, as you say, is a matter of perspective.
If they are the best, most qualified individuals for the job then they should get the work. Nobody should be handed work just because they are in a minority. They should work hard, be the best, and earn it.
It's hard for minorities and women to break into the industry and get these opportunities to photograph when the gatekeepers don't look like them.
I don't think it is hard at all. I think most news agencies want to hire a more diverse staff, but the women and people of color largely aren't interested. If the only people who apply for jobs are middle aged white males, then you can't fault the company's HR staff for hiring that demographic.
I belong to a photography club in the city nearest to where I live. Our membership is about a dozen middle aged and older white men, three women, and one twentysomething guy. The twentysomething guy and two of the women rarely come to meetings or activities. So 90% of the time it is a dozen middle aged to older white men and one woman. We very much want more women and people of color to become part of the club and attend meetings and get involved, but they aren't interested. No matter how much we send emails out to a diverse bunch of people, only the older (above 35) white men and one woman come.
It makes sense that it would be the same way for these news agencies - no matter how much they want to hire a diverse staff, the diverse people aren't interested in doing that kind of a job, so they seek other types of work and the agencies have no choice but to hire the same old same old.
How do we know they aren't interested? To Wasim's point - we see what gets through the gatekeepers process. How do we know women and minorites aren't facing a hurdle during the process of being hired? Implicit bias 100% exists in the world.
I can totally relate to the photo clubs - ours sounds quite similar. But think about how hard it is to feel accepted, no matter what the words if the whole club doesn't look or sound like you. It is a challenge to feel comfortable.
So where does the responsibility lie for creating a diverse and growing camera club? Am I supposed to learn all of the teenager slang terms so as to make them feel more comfortable? If I say "what a cool photo," are they gonna immediately gag and run for the door? Do they even know what that means? Do I have to dress like a twenty-something, or share their interests in music, or learn their language? My point is that I'm sure most clubs – mine, yours, Tom's – open the door to anyone who walks into a meeting. But in a group of predominantly older men, visitors have to be aware that there are always some age and cultural differences, and that to attain greater diversity, everyone – establishment and new members alike – have to put those differences aside and focus on what we're there for... which is photography. Understanding and acceptance goes both ways.
This discussion of diversity isn't an issue totally about perspectives and outcomes; it's an issue rooted in opportunities. Of course our environment growing up influences our perspective. Of course natural bias exists. It probably always will as long as basketball players need to be tall, and football lineman very big and strong, and brain surgeons smart. Jobs in photography should be more open, and I believe they are. There are certainly no barriers for minorities in forming an LLC and opening up shop as a wedding photographer. As long as there are opportunities available for everyone, regardless of race or sex, then that's about all I can demand of our society. The rest is up to the individual.
"How do we know women and minorities aren't facing a hurdle during the process of being hired?" How would we know that they are? Probably because our Congressional or Legislative representatives would be responding to cases of discrimination every other day. They’ve addressed these problems with government equal opportunity programs, as well as anti-discrimination laws enacted in the last 50 years or so which have impacted this issue significantly. And, of course, the ACLU loves a good case of discrimination. But consider this… according to my research, there are presently 62 Black members of Congress, roughly the same percentage as the overall population. What more as a society are we supposed to do than to give everyone an equal voice and the same freedoms and opportunities? You can’t legislate or force the outcomes. And you are simply never going to force everyone into thinking alike that there are, or are not, barriers or favoritism in individual minority cases. The world is generally shaped from our own personal experiences and by how we see it with our own eyes; rarely someone else's. Isn't that human nature?
It's hard for everyone to break into nearly every industry I can think of. The competition for good jobs is incredible. Media jobs are especially difficult because most media outlets are doing more firing than hiring. They're mostly in survival mode. Unless you're an extremely talented software engineer fresh out of Stanford, everyone else has to deal with a difficult labor market. I'm one of those old(er) white guys and face gatekeepers all the time who are tasked with isolating their bosses from pesky salespeople like myself. I don't get past them any easier than those minorities who you claim are discriminated against. Everyone who struggles with finding success in today's world feels discriminated against. I could use the excuse that it's my age which makes it so hard to compete. But the fact is, I just need to improve my skills, advertise more effectively, and persist in finding the right people who value my work. In other words... work harder and work smarter. It's not easy for anyone. But if a Black guy can become president of the United States, then I have no excuse for whatever I perceive to be my own failures.
Practically speaking, there are no laws which prevent a minority from applying for a job in photojournalism. With corporations under a microscope of racial diversity, it shouldn't be impossible for anyone to find work in their chosen field. Challenging? Yes, of course it is... as I said at the beginning of my comments. But if that's the job you want, stop making excuses and go get it. Put it into your mind that you're as qualified as anyone else, instead of framing the issue as being discriminated against before even applying for the job. I can attest to the fact that getting a job depends as much on the confidence that I project to a prospective client as it does anything else. And being self-employed, I'm essentially interviewing for a job every day. To go about it with the mindset that the deck is stacked against me is self-defeating from the start. With so many equal-protection laws in this country, how one views discrimination is almost certainly rooted in one's personal experiences... and we, as individuals, have full control of that.
If you are claiming discrimination by hiring managers at all mainstream press organizations (which it sounds like you are), I suggest doing you own investigation into that group rather than publicly shaming the photographers who are simply trying to do their job. This is the third time you have presented images of photojournalists taken by someone other than yourself as evidence of supposed discriminatory behavior on the part of the so-called "gatekeepers".
Most news agencies have thoroughly gutted their staff of photographers and journalists. An ever increasing number of "journalists" are freelance gig chasers, not full-time staff hired by any "gatekeeping" manager.
The problems with journalism today go far, far deeper than the skin color of any person.
I especially agree with your last sentence. Integrity, honesty, and accuracy have become major question marks in journalism. And potentially the biggest nightmare of all, AI, is just beginning to raise doubts about the integrity of any document or photograph. Now that is something I can lose sleep over.
You want the work? Get out there and hustle, 24/7. No excuse. Up your game. Improve your craft. Knock on doors until your knuckles bleed. All I hear these days is excuses. Your success in life is dictated by YOU. Stop making excuses for your shortcomings.
While this is not wrong, it doesn't change that there are some barriers for the same people working hard, hustling 24/7. You seem to be implying that because someone is minority they aren't out there hustling?
The field of journalism should be *actively* seeking minorites for reporters and photo journalists, they have perspectives and views on things that I will never be able to reflect in my work.
To pretend minorities aren't talented or working hard is laughable.
Jeffrey... I think you're reading something into his comment that's not there. I don't feel that Thomas was implying that minorities as a whole do not work hard or are not talented. He doesn't even mention minorities. He's merely saying that unless you do work hard, you deserve nothing, regardless of race or sex. That's not being a bigot... that's just a view that the individual determines his own success. Which, by the way, is a pretty commonly held belief.
You seem to be doing pretty well at it. How can you help others follow your path, aside from periodically pointing out the issue?
By teaching it …
A little help from my colleagues in the industry to recognize the issue wouldn’t hurt but it seems there’s quite the refusal to do that in these comments.
Maybe the refusal to recognize the issue is because the issue seems like a solution in search of a problem. The backlash against you in the community comments here comes from people like myself who have worked their ass off getting to where they are. Just because I'm a middle or older age white guy doesn't mean I've had everything given to me on a silver platter. While you frame the issue in a historical or cultural context, most of us feel like your argument diminishes our hard work.
Your ideas also diminish the huge and very real impact of racism that black and minorities faced before the 21st century. Even as short a time ago as the 1950s, black baseball players entering the major leagues faced incredible racism. Willie Mays and Hank Aaron couldn't eat at the same restaurants along with their white teammates. Black people in the south were spit upon, blasted with water hoses, attacked by dogs, refused entry into white hotels, restaurants and bathrooms. However, young black athletes today are coveted by major universities and given scholarships for simply being able to play a game. And you're telling me that there's systemic racism today?
Instead of using history as an excuse for failure, why not use history as means by which to show how good things are today? Your comments, in my opinion, are an insult to everything this country has overcome in behalf of minorities, as well as the hard work which people, regardless of race, sex or religion have accomplished.
Minorites are still treated differently today - I've witnessed it many times, it just isn't as obvious as you can only use this drinking fountain or have to sit here.
Was the problem worse in the past? Yes! But that doesn't change that there are still remnants of today - people just don't speak those words as loud.
Example, Me entering a gated community with a guard shack, I get waved through. A person of color I know, coming through about 15 minutes behind me, stopped, asked all sorts of questions, and then finally let through. This is just one small example, but we were 100% treated differently.
Everyone is frequently stereotyped. Not just minorities. As an old white guy, how many employers do you think would be racing to hire me? Especially without any updated skills in the last 20 years or more. Walmart greeter perhaps, or something else my age group is useful for... auto repair customer service driver. Drive a van. Well even that I might have a hard time getting because my hair is kind of shaggy, so I probably wouldn't fit the desirable appearance of a nicely groomed elderly person for the job. But ask me how much I care? Not the slightest.
A few years ago, my wife and I did an extended winter road trip along the gulf coast. At one point in the extreme lower part of Louisiana, I made the comment to my wife that I really hoped the car didn't break down because the locals would probably use me for alligator bait. Again, stereotypes are pretty entrenched in our society. So what? I'm sure as hell not gonna try to convince that redneck in the deep south that he should embrace me in his circle of friends. Besides, I hate seafood. Natural bias happens and it's not gonna change anytime soon. And I really don't care if it ever does. Wouldn't life be boring if we all looked at things the same way?
One last example... Remember when TSA was screening everyone in the same identical manner? Old ladies in wheel chairs, young Arab men... all the same way. The voice of common sense screamed... little old ladies are security threats? Are you nuts? But it took some time before rules relaxed a bit. If not legally allowed to profile, I'm pretty sure airport personnel use some judgement when it gets really busy. When it comes to blowing up airplanes, I'm happy to let them use profiling, screening technology, or whatever humbling techniques they want to use... even right down to stripping down to jockey shorts if that's what it takes to keep us safe. After all, no law says I have to fly. Last month going through airport security in San Francisco, my wife got to keep her shoes on and I had to remove them. That's because she's over 70 and I'm not (at least until next month). Discrimination!!!! Or maybe I just look more the part of a terrorist. More discrimination. Fine... I couldn't care less.
Honestly I could make a case for all kinds of discrimination against me in my life... but they're so far removed on terms of practical consequences from the discrimination against minorities prior to the 21st century that I'd be embarrassed to even call them acts of discrimination. I understand your point that our childhood shapes our future, but the response commonly expressed in the community here is that it's not the defining measure of a person's right to work. And ultimately, any perceived barriers can be overcome with hard work and persistence.
Changed my mind on posting this comment.
Thank you for your comment
It just reflects the fact that the Republican Party is controlled by (old) white men.
As an old white guy myself, don't underestimate the dominance of old white men in photography, regardless of the political affiliation.
But you're aging like fine wine.
Thanks Wasim!
Most of the press photographers are probably not Republicans as the press in the US is largely self-identified as more left leaning. That does not keep them from doing their job although they may capture more images that align with their stereotypes.
BS article! DEI, identity politics, and politics in general has no place on Fstoppers. If this becomes the norm here, goodbye!
Actually, political issues have always been well represented, and adamantly discussed, here on Fstoppers. This is nothing new for this website. In fact, that is one of the things I love about Fstoppers, that there is no ban on talking about religion or politics. That sets Fstoppers apart, and above, other online photography websites.
Thank you for your response. Even in the articles in which you have disagreed with my opinion, you have stated your response intelligently and respectfully. I've always appreciated that
The real problem is HOW do we embrace more voices without silencing others? The paying job opportunities are scarce and professionals are entrenched.
This is the real question here.
It is an issue within the photography community. If we can't discuss any issue facing photographers here, we're just trying to hide stuff under the rug.
The very fact this comment section is full of the comments it is, is the very proof we should be talking about it MORE often.
The whining and sniveling in this article reminds me of back in the day when other fake journalists were complaining that national parks have too many white people. Like it's the white folks fault.
Diversity = anti-white = wrong.
Checking boxes = wrong.
If you use your head for thinking and your eyes for seeing, you'd see most photographers in many genres are white men.
--- "it’s stunning that news organizations don’t consider this when sending out photographers."
They should be sending photographers that are qualified and not because they check some boxes.
--- "Representation matters in photojournalism."
No. Motivation and talent does.
--- "I'll keep writing this article until the industry gets there."
Cry all you want. The whole industry, not just photojournalism, would have to shift…on its own.
Not even sure why I'm responding when a statement diversity = anti-white is about the most profound misunderstanding of what diversity is about, but here I am.
You are implying minority photographers aren't talented? Why are you leaping to that conclusion?
Re: representation, first - you are implying minorities don't have motivation and talent, a laughable notion. But - beyond that, representation 100% matters in photojournalism.
People from different ways of life (not just skin color, but different ways of life - think rural white boy vs city white boy. Those two individuals will both have vastly different perspectives on how the world works. What is an issue, what isn't an issue. They will have different access to things (not prohibitive, but the city boy doing a story on farming is not going to get the same story the rural boy doing the story will and vice versa).
Perspective and representation matters in journalism more than anywhere else!
I think you're reading words that aren't there. I don't think Black Z Eddie is in any way generalizing about the work ethics of minorities. Where does he say minorities are not talented? It's not there.
I would agree with you to the extent that perspective matters in photojournalism, or else the audience only tends to see one side of the story. But the photojournalist still must know how to operate his camera and take professional photographs. Which gets back to his argument that qualifications matter. Maybe we could appreciate both sides?
For what it's worth, so much of photojournalism has been relegated to the ranks of cheap freelance images, and reduction of media staff photographers, that the whole industry should probably be alarmed, and not just over whether one person feels discriminated against. Doesn’t the debate over what constitutes an “honest” photograph, and the future of technology, scare you more than than the issues debated here? In that light, we’re all likely to become roadkill.
--- "a statement diversity = anti-white is about the most profound misunderstanding of what diversity is about"
There's no misunderstanding. Open your eyes. Every time the word diversity is used, it's usually complaining about the white folks and how can we have less of them and more of the other.
--- "You are implying minority photographers aren't talented? Why are you leaping to that conclusion?"
You are the one leaping to conclusions. Go re-read my 3rd paragraph above. Apparently you missed it. Also, I specifically said "Motivation and talent". They go together. Meaning, they have to want it. That's step 1. Step 2, they have to be great at it. The best even.
Some of the comments here are much more revealing of how systemic racism works.
I am shocked by the comments here.
Photojournalism is not FOR white males. It just happens that white males are the ones who choose to get really into it. It would be great to see more women and more people of color and more youngsters doing this work, but evidently they are just not very interested in the profession, as evidenced by the photo that you wrote this article about.
I notice the same thing when I am afield photographing wildlife ..... a disproportionately large amount of white males, ages 35-75, are the ones out there photographing wild animals. I don't see as many young people as I would like out there, and I don't see as many women or people of color.
I have encouraged many young people to further their interest in wildlife photography - invited them to photography club meetings, offered to take them afield to photograph the critters, offered to loan them my gear for a few days or a week, offered to show them how to download and edit the images. Most aren't very interested. A few are interested, and take me up on the things I have offered to show them ..... but they just don't get as into it as older people - I mean the 35-75 year olds get super super obsessed about it and it takes over their life, but the youngsters are happy to just dabble a bit instead of driving themselves hard to become as great as they can possibly be at photography.
I don't understand why, but certain demographics just don't get as super-obsessed about certain things as my demographic does.
I hear what you're saying about camera clubs. Our group is a balanced mixture of men and women, but hardly anyone under the age of 60. If I were a twenty-something and walked into one of our meetings, I'd think I'd have walked into a nursing home for old folks. We've often wondered why young people avoid clubs. Lots of speculation but nothing that changes the direction of what we are.
Another example though that gets to your point... look at all the comments in a thread like this. How many women are represented here? As best I can tell, none to this point. Is that because they're discriminated against? Of course not. Women have every right to post a comment here. I'm guessing it's more the human nature of females to avoid hypothetical and contentious arguments. If there are snarky remarks made in the community, they're pretty well attributed to men, not women. My point is that there are many potential explanations for lack of diversity, other than a master plan to discriminate against race or sex.
How do we know they aren't interested? Do you have the breakdown of the demographics who applied for jobs?
It is a bold statement to say minorities aren't interested in these positions when we might be looking at the symptoms of the issue and not the cause.
This is complete rubbish.
Photography (in America) is dominated by white men because white men choose to do it. The field is completely open to ANYBODY regardless of race, colour, gender, sex, religion, etc., etc..
Considering in the US 62% of the population are white and here in the UK where 86% of the population is white of course you are going to get more white men.
Why are non-white men and non-men NOT choosing this field?
There are some careers that certain genders pursue. For example child care and nursing are dominated by females. Why are not men entering these fields?
In the UK the vast majority of Heavy Metal fans are white men. I don't think I have ever seen a black person at a Metal concert. Why? Why are black people NOT interested in Metal? There are plenty of white people interested in, like and play Blues, Reggae, Jazz and Rap, why isn't it reciprocated?
The answer is not just a question of colour but something deeper and prolly is culture based and the psychological differences between peoples.
I would like to see more women in the Army. I'm sick of seeing men killed on the front line and its men who have their arms and legs blown off. I'd like to see women take their fair share of this load.
In the Free World, people are FREE to choose their career etc. The fact that there is a huge gender/race gap in photojournalism may be down to the fact there are so few non-white non-males wanting to enter the field in the first place.
Now if someone is being blocked because of their colour or gender, now, that is another matter entirely. Not that I think that generally happens.
It's not about someone being blocked now. It's about the history of the industry.
For instance, most internships in journalism are unpaid. That means that only people of means can afford it. People of means are more often white males because they've had the least amount of obstacles placed in their path in this country and have had the years to build the generational wealth to do this. Minorities - for instance, if your family started this country in slavery - haven't had that same amount of time to catch up. People of color could not even attend the same schools as white people until very recently in our history. This is how systemic racism works and it's baffling to see that so few people understand that.
Because of this, most of the editors in the industry are overwhelmingly male, and people tend to gravitate towards people who look and think like them.
It's pretty easy to say this stuff without researching it. Googling something is not researching it. And yes, I've done the actual research.
No, it's actually about diverse people not choosing to get into this field, and not applying for these jobs, because they don't want these jobs. They prefer other fields for their careers. It is their own choice that causes them to have other types of jobs in other fields. It's not like there are lots of diversely colored people applying for this work and getting overlooked. They just aren't applying because they want other types of employment because they have different interests and preferences.
Where are you drawing these conclusions from? Is it possible that the 20-somethings who showed up to the photo club maybe felt a little uncomfortable because they were surrounded by much older people who didn't look like them?
I know that was the case when I lived in Florida. So I started my own photography club.