Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob D.
I disagree. The mind-set of many people who work at newspapers is that not only do they help to report the news (and history), they help preserve it for future generations. Unlike baseball team front-office types who see no value in old player contracts that collectors would love to own, newspaper people realize that dumping an archive of photos is in effect throwing away history. For the most part, I would say the importance is realized, and steps are taken to try to preserve rather than destroy.
|
That really varies from one paper to the next, and nowadays more than ever, the finances of the paper can have a big effect. In many cases, I would wager that the only reason the paper still maintains an archive of decades-old photos is that they are kept in-house in a building that is already paid for in a space (basement) that is not in-demand for their day-to-day operation since they certainly aren't growing in terms space needed for their staff. It's simply easier to leave them where they are, and on the off chance that they need a photo of an old-time ballplayer to run, they don't have to pay the AP or Getty Images or whoever for it. If the paper is going under, consigning the old photo files to the dumpster (or whatever staff wants to cart them off) is still a very real possibility.
That is one of the biggest reasons that I think John Rogers has been so successful in prying these photo archives away from the various publications. Not only does he negotiate the purchase of the physical photos, but also returns to the paper a digital archive of the images so that they will still have those available for further publication. Most of the papers he has worked with see it as a win-win-win: they free up the space of the physical archives, they get the images in a more readily-usable form, and most importantly, they get an infusion of cash.