The article ran yesterday. Since we don't consider Sacramento local(even though it's only 30 minutes away) they ran a feature on me going to tent city rather than a story on tent city itself. A short first person account of the situation and the kind or people there with a photo essay. Kinda odd really; a newspaper doing a feature on it's own employee.
But don't worry. I'm not pursuing photojournalism. I've already been working for the same newspaper since 2003. I'm pretty much in it now rather than pursuing it.
But I can tell you why so many photojs are attracted to poverty. If you really work in the field, unless you are a big name, then you spend virtually all your time shooting meaningless meetings, ceremonies, high school sports and so on. So to build a portfolio to hopefully get you on to better things you have to shoot meaningful and challenging subject. For most people, they can't hope over to the nearest warzone so they move into poverty. It's a good stettping stone to move up. Most don't do well with it or don't like it and move on to other things. Others are good at it and further their photoj career.
My next project is a months long essay following a local low income family living on the edge.
It's only poverty porn when it's done in a the same manner like the way every photographer does the "water Drop" shot; when they do it just to do it because everyone else does it and do a lot of it with no passion for it. You'll notice the poverty photogs who are successful do nothing but poverty and war almost exclusively. For me that's when it's no longer in the boundaries of "porn."
Every single day I have to shoot those pointless meetings, high school soccer games, ribbon cuttings, and the local lady who makes quits. But my passions lie in medical and poverty photography. To me it's not porn and to my readers it's not meaningless. So I think I'll be fine staying with poverty in the end.
I don't mean to make it sound like I'm attacking you and I know you are just adding your 2 cents from your own experiences, but telling me to watch out because many photojs fall into "poverty porn" and one shouldn't do it if it's not making a difference would be kinda like me going into the thread of a passionate landscape photog here and telling them that it's a waste of time because they'll never be as good as Ansel Adams. See where I'm coming from?
Thanks for all the positive input, everybody.