British "Independent" newspaper closes

<p>30 years of publication, with an unparalleled reputation, particularly in its early days, for striking photography, especially by its first chief photographer Brian Harris:<br /> http://www.brianharrisphotographer.co.uk/About/About.html<br /> Circulation said to be down from 428,000 copies a day at its peak to a present 28,000, so closure cannot be anything but inevitable. An attempt is being made to sell off the "i", a free derivative of the Independent - industry pundits doubt that this will survive:<br /> http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/feb/11/the-independent-dream-that-lasted-for-30-years<br /> An undeniable sign of the times - I will miss this paper, how many others will or will care that slowly all news media are coming entirely under the control of advertisers?</p>

<p>Well, David. First of all it will continue as a webside although they will lay off near hundred journalist staff, I will certainly not miss it. For some time now, it has become just yet another tabloid among the other British press horrors like Daily Mail or Daily Mirror. They are all controlled by advertisers, Daily Telegraph the worse in that case, but even more controlled and biased, by their very conservative owners, Murdoch being one of them (The Sun, not to mention Foxnews, and Wall Street Journal). I have never experienced the Independent as particularly photography friendly.</p>

<p>The only real missing I feel by what happens to the Independent would be the journalists Cockburn and Fisk and their great inside knowledge and truth-telling on the Middle East. But they will surely be picked up by others very rapidly. (Read <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-the-winners-and-losers-are-becoming-clear-in-this-war-a6872636.html">here in today's paper on Syria</a>)</p>

<p><em>I have never experienced the Independent as particularly photography friendly.</em><br>

From 1998:<br>

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/independent-is-the-top-newspaper-for-photographs-1146943.html</p>

<p><em>The Indie</em> circulation has dropped from a high of 400,000 to (I heard) about 40,000, so its closure as a national print medium was pretty much inevitable. The same goes for several other UK print newspapers. Fortunately here in the UK we have very good TV and internet news services. The UK based TV stations are legally required to be unbiased unlike UK newspapers.<br /> Maybe the model provided by news / opinion sites such as <em>The Huffington Post</em> will become more common. However these online platforms perhaps provide less scope for photography than print.<br /> So I am not that distressed by the impending passing of these print newspapers. Online editions will tend to have a much lower profile.</p>

<p>I'm neither surprised nor distressed by the departure of the Independent- which wasn't a paper I read or valued. I think people value a newspaper less than they did- partly I guess because by the time I read it there's little of the earth-shattering stuff that I haven't already seen on a news website or on TV and my wife spends more time on the online version . So whilst we get a newspaper every day its sometimes not read much, and some days we get it free at the supermarket when shopping. I wonder what proportion of papers are actually paid for today? <br>

I don't really agree with Colin's perception that newspapers are more biased. I think that many people will regard "their" paper as neutral and the others they don't read as biased. That said, many years ago I stopped reading the daily mirror entirely because it was taken over by Maxwell who saw it as a personal organ. I think the BBC with its active love of all forms of political/sexual/racial correctness and a management cadre that thinks that way- is at least as biased as the newspapers. The primary distinction I draw is between the papers that make some effort to provide quality coverage (even if it is a day late) and those that make every effort to avoid quality writing and intelligent argument as if they think that ordinary people don't want or deserve it. </p>

<p>I hadn't really thought of any newspaper as a home of interesting photography. None of them really behave like its a big deal to them and I'd imagined most of their photography is bought in from agencies and the days of competent, imaginative staff photographers went a long time ago. <br>

</p>

<p>"From 1998:"<br>

David B., that is last century ! Is it still ?<br>

<br>

Concerning "biased" I agree David H. on "the distinction I draw is between the papers that make some effort to provide quality coverage".. and those that make every effort to avoid quality writing and intelligent argument". I find it very difficult not to put the Independent in the latter large category apart from as mentioned a couple of exceptional journalists. In the first category you would find Financial Times and the Guardian (some times ! but don't ask them to make an effort on Snowden !.) and this it, I suppose.<br>

</p>

<p>Anders, as I said:<br>

<em>unparalleled reputation, particularly in its early days, for striking photography, especially by its first chief photographer Brian Harris</em><br>

The paper was unfortunately not able to afford to go on spending so much on photography and made less and less use of it, to the point where Harris left, but the first few years were very good!<br>

My personal attitude to newspapers is that I appreciate good writing - I read the Times until Murdoch got his hands on it, after that the Independent until their lack of resources became too obvious (their columnists in particular were clearly able to file any old tosh and get away with it - on the other hand, they published about 80% of the reader's letters I sent :-) ). I then read the Daily Telegraph (easily the best-produced British paper from a technical newsgathering point of view), switching back to the Independent in the run-up to general elections when the Telegraph's Tory bias became too much. I can't say I am devastated by the Independent's demise (inevitably the on-line version will be written for those with short attention spans and be correspondingly superficial, and with no serious print version behind it the necessary synergy effects will not operate) but the British press landscape will be all the poorer for its absence.</p>

<p>Speaking about newspapers and their use of photography and articles on photographers and their work, in France, I mainly read Le Monde and Libération because they are both serious papers with in-depth analyses and regularly present very good work on art in general and also on photography. In the US, New York Times, which has become less and less trustworthy in journalistic terms (foreign policy!), they do publish good articles on art and Photography. </p>

<p>When the Indi first came out, that was the paper I'd buy, mostly based on its excellent BW photography. When they went to colour photography, I changed paper. </p>

<p>When was that Peter ?</p>

@Anders Hingel it must be ~15 years ago

<p>David, Colin and Peter, I must say that my experience with the Independent has mainly been based on the on-line version and I have only very rarely bought the paper version. Too expensive in France for any purpose.</p>

<p><em> </em><br /> <em>"The UK based TV stations are legally required to be unbiased"</em><br /> If only that was true.....</p>

<p> </p>