|
We all know the sad song:
newspapers are dying. Some even say they should, as soon as possible. Yes, we can get our “news” – whatever the slippery definition of
it may now be – in more efficient and interactive ways. But what do we lose if
the newspaper goes away?
I think we lose a daily record of
our culture, a collage of “right now.” It tells me a great deal about our world
to see a “national” page with a story about a slain football star above a story
about Darfur, both on a page with advertising
from BMW, for example. I know a lot about our values – where they rank
alongside each other, how they come into conflict, and how good and bad the
world is all at once. Greed, senseless crime, genocide, trading up, achievement
drive – all in a glance. That’s us. Perhaps there is even a cause-and-effect
argument to be made across all these various forms of content, all these
stories?
I also know a lot about the editorial filter and view of the paper,
though it may not be officially and formally presented on the editorial page.
No website has yet to provide me with this same degree of cultural collage – or
cultural insight. In fact, the “genius” of Google and the other new ad engines
will remove the revelations of these conflicts by making sure only the “right”
ad appears with the “right” content. Soon, I will only see what I already know
– the machine will remove mash-up and opportunity for interpretation.
Efficiency: 1. Humanity: 0.
Perhaps we should start looking
at newspapers as being about more than just “the news.” They are a daily
barometer of the people, community, city or nation that publish them. That we
no longer care to read them – in full context of everything on each page – says
more about us than about the news business.
**to read more articles by this author, click on the name under the headline**
 |
E.