The Newspaper
These are some Thoughts about the (daily) newspaper, but to a certain extent they could apply to books, magazines, and other forms of paper communication. The key word here is paper (or printed if you prefer). To me, there is something totally different about consuming information that marries tactile actions with seeing and digesting printed material, as opposed to consuming it using electronic media. I enjoy turning the pages, turning back to check a previous point, moving between sections, evaluating opinions, checking the comics, perhaps making a note or taking a pencil to one of the puzzles. In my hands is something with some structure, something that invites participation (even including irritations like straightening the paper fold), something that is bio-degradable (for you environmentalists) and doesn't care if you spill coffee on it; in short - something familiar and comfortable.
But, you say, I can get all (well, most) of those things with my tablet or smart phone. Yes, yes you can. But I submit that is rather missing the point. Kids running for school president can send texts but still feel the need to make campaign banners, and I can write about a science topic but would rather do a project for the Science Fair. There is something added by including a physical action. And there is no substitute for reading through someone's old letters or journals (assuming you read cursive) despite knowing they did not have electronic media. In this latter case, you are touching something they touched so it would not be the same as reading a digitized version online. Does this distinction make sense?
I recognize this is a generational thing. Many of us grew up with the consumption of information via printed material, which stayed with us through the advent of radio, television and electronic media. I also recognize there are some real advantages to having an eBook instead of a 700-page tome on a trip. But working through a newspaper or printed book invites a measured consumption of the material with its references to the material's sources and authorship, as opposed to parsing through the online flood of information of uncertain origin. This is not about stopping progress; it is about sometimes recognizing the value of preserving a previous way of doing things. And I hope it doesn't sound the same as regretting the passing of the horse and buggy, whale oil or payphones.
None of this, I am sure, would convince a younger person that this preference for printed material is “better”, and in a sense, it really shouldn't. These methods of information consumption are just preferences, no big deal. But forgive me if I mourn the passing of the morning paper (although the trend toward commentary disguised as news is dulling my appetite), which I assume will eventually occur in all communities. I can only hope the same fate for printed books does not occur in my lifetime. Thoughts?
enough