Career Advice

Malcom Gladwell to aspiring journalists:

The issue is not writing. It's what you write about. One of my favorite columnists is Jonathan Weil, who writes for Bloomberg. He broke the Enron story, and he broke it because he's one of the very few mainstream journalists in America who really knows how to read a balance sheet. That means Jonathan Weil will always have a job, and will always be read, and will always have something interesting to say. He's unique. Most accountants don't write articles, and most journalists don't know anything about accounting. Aspiring journalists should stop going to journalism programs and go to some other kind of grad school. If I was studying today, I would go get a master's in statistics, and maybe do a bunch of accounting courses and then write from that perspective. I think that's the way to survive. The role of the generalist is diminishing. Journalism has to get smarter.

Gladwell's advice applies equally to photography. Forget film school.  Nature photographers are better served by graduate degrees in Genetics, Evolution, or Geology than anything from a generalized photography school. Know your subject, as they say.

More like this

I'm sure I've done more than enough wibbling about TED for this week, but the only major physics story at the moment involved the Higgs boson, and I'm thoroughly sick of that. So let's talk about Malcolm Gladwell and journosplaining. Gladwell has a new book out, David and Goliath that from all…
"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -Benjamin Franklin Recently, a number of people -- of widely different ages and levels of education -- have contacted me for advice on whether or not pursuing a PhD in astrophysics/physics/science-in-general is right for them. Of course, I can't…
It's that time of year again, when eager undergraduates start thinking about their futures, including the possibility of graduate school. This inevitably leads to emails of the form "Hi, Professor, could you write recommendations for me for these nine schools? And by the way, they're due Friday.…
There are no more excuses. None. The defining characteristic of all arguments with creationists is how damned ignorant they are. I'm sure many scientists have been stupefied into stunned silence when they first encounter these people; these advocated of creationism are typically loud and certain…

No, no. Obviously, today's photographers would be better doing statistics. Once you've done that, evolution and genetics are easy.

Good points. Lately, specializing has been on my mind as well. I currently have a scatter-gun approach to nature photography, and have been wondering if I should specialize somewhere in the macro area. Time for some serious pondering...

Well said, Alex. And quite true. Knowing the subject(s) you want to photograph is the only way you'll get the photos that count (dumb luck notwithstanding). You can know everything about cameras and lenses and still never photograph anything of interest--and all because you haven't a clue how to find and approach anything of interest.

This is why Mark Moffett is so successful with his nature photography, plus the fact that he's willing to hang from a tree limb 200 feet above the ground with only a bungee cord to support him.

By Dave General (not verified) on 23 Oct 2009 #permalink