Latest News: Garbage Wrappers Disappearing!
Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich both devote their columns today to opining the condition of newsprint. Who will keep the government in check if no one is willing to subscribe to a daily newspaper?
Let me start with a confession—I've only subscribed to one newspaper in my life, and that was for a three-month trial period when I was in college. I have no interest in paying for the news, no matter how logical the argument.
The thing is I've always had free access to the news. When I was a child, my father subscribed to two daily papers, one local in the little community where I was raised and one from the closest big city. On Sundays he bought a copy of the Chicago Tribune. (Sorry, New York Times, Dad was a Yankee hater.)
By the time I was four years old, I had learned to read and write with those daily papers as prompts, mostly from following the "funny papers." Many years later I helped start a weekly newspaper whose circulation reached over 33,000. And my first publications came in newsprint while I was in college. As early as high school, testing indicated that I should have a career in publishing, probably as an editor. But I resisted for a long time. I wanted to play center field, preferably for the Chicago Cubs. (Ah, well, something about good eyesight got in the way.)
For many years, my favorite way to access newsprint was by way of the "counter paper" in a local diner. Corner restaurants always had several copies of various newspapers so that their coffee swilling customers had something to read and gossip about. (If you check out the history of coffee houses in Europe, you'll find this is an old story and an important one. They were hubs of political opinion making and revolution.)
Now blogging has taken the place of the coffee house. I can sit with my cup at my computer and read the paper and voice my reaction to the day's (or yesterday's) events and opinions. But I do confess that I miss the instant feedback from my coffee drinking buddies and the give and take of real conversation.
I have no idea how newspapers are going to survive their current decline. The state of the newspaper business has always been in a state of flux. Its history is more similar to that of a fruit fly, constantly evolving.
Newsprint and radio served us fairly well during the Second World War; and during the civil rights/free speech/Vietnam era, newsprint and TV served the public relatively well. But prior to WWII, newsprint was most notable for being yellow, and after the Nixon administration almost all of journalism sold its soul for a quick buck. During the last eight years, very nearly all of news media happily joined the propaganda program for the Bush administration's campaign to fight an illegal and immoral war.
"Build a better mouse trap and people will beat a path to your door." Maybe, but only if they are willing to admit they have a problem with rodents.
"Politicians are people who are willing to do the jobs that no one else wants to." Which is why they believe it is their right to raid the public treasury.
Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich both devote their columns today to opining the condition of newsprint. Who will keep the government in check if no one is willing to subscribe to a daily newspaper?
Let me start with a confession—I've only subscribed to one newspaper in my life, and that was for a three-month trial period when I was in college. I have no interest in paying for the news, no matter how logical the argument.
The thing is I've always had free access to the news. When I was a child, my father subscribed to two daily papers, one local in the little community where I was raised and one from the closest big city. On Sundays he bought a copy of the Chicago Tribune. (Sorry, New York Times, Dad was a Yankee hater.)
By the time I was four years old, I had learned to read and write with those daily papers as prompts, mostly from following the "funny papers." Many years later I helped start a weekly newspaper whose circulation reached over 33,000. And my first publications came in newsprint while I was in college. As early as high school, testing indicated that I should have a career in publishing, probably as an editor. But I resisted for a long time. I wanted to play center field, preferably for the Chicago Cubs. (Ah, well, something about good eyesight got in the way.)
For many years, my favorite way to access newsprint was by way of the "counter paper" in a local diner. Corner restaurants always had several copies of various newspapers so that their coffee swilling customers had something to read and gossip about. (If you check out the history of coffee houses in Europe, you'll find this is an old story and an important one. They were hubs of political opinion making and revolution.)
Now blogging has taken the place of the coffee house. I can sit with my cup at my computer and read the paper and voice my reaction to the day's (or yesterday's) events and opinions. But I do confess that I miss the instant feedback from my coffee drinking buddies and the give and take of real conversation.
I have no idea how newspapers are going to survive their current decline. The state of the newspaper business has always been in a state of flux. Its history is more similar to that of a fruit fly, constantly evolving.
Newsprint and radio served us fairly well during the Second World War; and during the civil rights/free speech/Vietnam era, newsprint and TV served the public relatively well. But prior to WWII, newsprint was most notable for being yellow, and after the Nixon administration almost all of journalism sold its soul for a quick buck. During the last eight years, very nearly all of news media happily joined the propaganda program for the Bush administration's campaign to fight an illegal and immoral war.
"Build a better mouse trap and people will beat a path to your door." Maybe, but only if they are willing to admit they have a problem with rodents.
"Politicians are people who are willing to do the jobs that no one else wants to." Which is why they believe it is their right to raid the public treasury.
Labels: the press
posted by Jim | 12:37 PM
1 Comments:
Good thoughts, Jim. I've been a working journalist since74, when, as a college senior, I interned a weekly newspaper in southeastern Idaho. I landed my first full-time journalism job at another weekly in south-central Idaho a few months before graduation and had to motor back to Idaho State University in my 69 Karman Ghia (my first car; now kids get freebie cars from their parents. You're right. It is all about profit, not public service. And local tee vee "news" programs are sad, comical outfits thriving on local crime baloney. WBRE and all the others simply dispatch camera crews and cub reporters every time the police radio scanner squelches, and off they go to the next highway crash, drug arrest or homicide scene. Gee, what about serious societal-wide issues like air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, etc. etc.?
Speaking of noise pollution, take a look at www.noisefree.org some time. One of the great videos I just watched has to do with leaf blowers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oQnxP14maQ
My dad always read the morning paper and also subscribed to the Christian Science Monitor, which used to be a first-class outlet for serious, in-depth journalism. I think the demise today of several big-city dailies has more to do, though, with just the Internet. A majority of younger folks today are simply out-of-touch with the world (unless their own "bottom line" is threatened).
Post a Comment
<< Home