I grew up in a house filled with reading. My parents subscribed to all sorts of magazines, and my mom especially read every book she could get her hands on (especially during the summer when she could take a break from To Kill a Mockingbird and The Scarlet Letter).My parents also read newspapers, at least two each day. Some of my earliest memories are of long summer mornings, the smell of coffee in the air, sun streaming through the front windows and newspapers strewn all over the floor. When I describe my parents to people, I say that they would roll around in words if they could.
When I went to college, I pursued an English degree without much focus. During my second year, though, I took a journalism course as a requirement, and I discovered my collegiate purpose. I started writing for the campus newspaper soon after that, and I found some of my life's best friends. We were a small staff of writers and editors, but we saw ourselves as the campus crusaders for justice--exposing wrongs and questioning the establishment.
Now that I'm an adult, I've continued my love affair with newspapers and journalism. I subscribe to the Washington Post, and try to read at least one article each morning before school. On weekends, I make a big pot of coffee, let the sun stream through the front windows and surround myself with words.
Sadly, fewer and fewer people are starting their days with a hard copy of the newspaper. I understand that many have chosen the convenience of free access to the news, but I worry that fewer people are actually reading the news. Maybe it's my social-studies-teaching father speaking through me, but the thought of a free society without the watchful eye of the press petrifies me. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary to keep the waters pure."
So, in an effort to ensure that the agitation of public opinion continues, I implore everyone to help save the freedom of the press: participate in Buy a Newspaper Day. If you're feeling especially generous, shell out another $.50 and buy two.
10 comments:
I heard reporters recently talking about the decline in newspapers. As they make less money, the quality of the reporters decline. As a result, the quality of the stories they report decline. We've noticed this. Gone are the days of in depth reporting, which requires more research and more resources. In depth stories mean less bang for the buck in the commercial world. It seems the only place you can find in-depth reporting these days is on public radio. The newspapers are just headlines with shallow stories.
I do think we can still surround ourselves with words. News magazines seem to still have quality reporting. I'm a Fareed Zakaria fan, personally.
This reminds me of the column that I wrote about your 'old paper friend.' Well said.
I loved that article, Jules! I think of it often.
I shelled out $1.50 for the eight-page "Barack Obama extra edition" of the Post-Dispatch on Inauguration Day, partially because the historian in me wanted it for posterity, but mostly because the recovering journalist in me wanted to support the Post-Dispatch. It's the same reason I keep my Sunday subscription to the paper -- I may not always read it, but it's worth supporting, because I still believe in print journalism.
This is just another example of the way Capitalism turns good things into corrupted, meaningless shells of their former selves, solely in the name of profit. But if you want a more simplified answer, let's start with the way papers are generally sold...
You put your money in the slot, and you are allowed to TAKE AS MANY AS YOU WANT? Can you think of another single product in our entire economy that is still operating on the principal of the "golden rule?" And even if you subscribe to a paper, it's chucked into your bushes every morning, or left to soak in the rain and snow.
Hey, I'm not claiming to have any better ideas, but for me, it's not that hard to see why print media is increasingly moving toward the digital realm like everything else these days. After all, I don't see you doing your blogging via postcard ;)
Good call Austin. Print media is pretty much a waste of trees and other resources (manpower, ink, and paperboy throwing arms). Going online makes a lot of sense; they just need to get a hold on the business model. Advertisements seem to work well for good online sites (big majority of Google's revenue) as well as almost all TV shows. That income will pay the reporters who will presumably produce the good stories. Done.
Print journalism isn't a waste of trees when what's being printed and read informs the general populous. The problem with only reading material online is that readers tend not to read the longer, more in-depth stories. We catch the headlines, but we don't sit down and read the stories. We know what's going on, but we don't always understand all the ins and outs. If you guys are able to read a long story in front of a computer monitor, more power to you. Unfortunately, that's just not the case for most people, which brings us back to my initial concern of an uninformed public.
Also, a purely digital world takes away from the act of reading a book or the newspaper as something unique and special. Again, this may not be important to some, but I don't want to live in a culture where people no longer make a point to "curl up with a good book" or surround themselves with the newspaper on a lazy weekend morning. To me, it's sad and a bit scary that fewer and fewer people still want to hold words in their hands.
I'd like to add an addendum to my post. One thing I LIKE about print media over online media is that it's permanent. If it's printed, there's a permanent record that it occured in history. When everything is online, you subject yourself to more "after the fact" editing, AND (*ahem* RACHEL) censorship in the form of deleting info you don't want to be read. (See: 2 comments above this)
One of the problems in education is exactly what you've mentioned, Rachel. Kids don't grow up "cuddling" books with their parents. The pleasant associations with books aren't created because it's easier to plop kids in front of the tv or let them play games on the computer. Both those inventions are marvelous and, indeed, have their functions. However, the beauty of language and the love of learning rarely come from those two. It's those early years with those lovely books that create students, and, more importantly, people who truly love to learn.
Post a Comment