Last night I attended the panel discussion "Louped In: The Photography Editors" held at FIT. On the panel: Lisa Berman from Entertainment Weekly, David Carthas from Blender, Nancy Jo Iacoi from Orchard Represents, Michele McNally from The New York Times, Michael Norseng from Esquire, Zana Woods from WIRED. The smorgasbord of talented editors was fairly un-diversified, due to the fact that all but one of the editors mostly work in a particular genre of imagery-- editorial portraiture. It was interesting to hear anecdotes about Britney Spears in Esquire, or publicists leading their clients astray, but the salient question wasn't overtly asked. Are all of the publications that you are representing going to soon disappear?

When a question was ambiguously proposed concerning budget cuts, the answers were muted... Considering that CondeNast and Time Inc. just underwent some severe 'alterations', the question seemed like a pertinent topic. It was eclipsed. Michelle McNally from the New York Times was the only panelist to directly address the question, in what I thought was an enlightening answer. She mentioned that there are more opportunities for journalists now more than ever before because of digital outlets, that photographers are becoming videographers, multidimensional producers and artists. Embrace the tools. After such dismal predictions-- the end of newspapers and journalism as we knew it-- Michelle firmly claimed no.

With plans to consolidate titles-- Men's Vogue into Vogue, the newly launched Portfolio, practically gone-- it seems like the blockbuster news-stand is diminishing... Hopefully, the long-tail portals and the smaller mags wont overtake the giants, or absolutely disappear, but coexist with the venerated publications. It's a tricky time, and we're all learning how to extend play time into the future. Ill trust in Ms. McNally's point of view.