THE INTIMACY OF PAPER, PART III: NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES

One of my genealogy magazines (hard copy) recently had an article about reducing clutter in one’s place of research by scanning and saving everything electronically and discarding the paper records.  Well, I save everything electronically and I save my paper too.  Behind me are banker boxes full of records and documents for each branch of  my family tree.


I also read magazines while eating lunch or watching television. I mute the commercials and read. Don't think I could read The New Yorker articles on line.  That great magazine deserves to be held in my hands and read thoroughly.   (I'll bet The New Yorker didn't know they were writing for a little old lady in a flyover state!)   The Internet does not invite thorough reading. 


We recently watched a DVD about the earth and what would happen if human beings no longer lived here -- how long all the things we have produced would last.  Surprisingly to me, DVDs and CDs had a very short shelf life in the scheme of things.  The program mentioned that DVDs and CDs would probably last no more than 10 to 20 years, if that long.  I did a little bit more research and learned a lot of things come into play such as the type of materials used to create the DVD or CD, but at the most, in perfect storage conditions, 100 years is the longest range I could find.  And we are talking “perfect storage conditions” that rarely exist anywhere. (Not to mention the electronic devices necessary to watch or listen to the DVDs or Cds.  The only device required of a hard copy of anything are a pair of eyes.)


Doesn’t anyone like to sit and read a copy of a newspaper anymore?  We subscribe to three newspapers: the Oklahoma Observer, the Lawton Constitution, and The Oklahoman.  Reading these three newspapers keep us informed about our state.  I always learn something new everyday reading the newspaper.  More often than not, the articles are much more in depth than what one sees on the television or hears on commercial radio stations.  National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered” are the only two news sources that can rise above newspapers in the depth of news reporting. The general manager of the radio station where I once worked was always heralding the demise of the newspaper.  He was actively looking forward to the day when there were no newspapers (even though he contacted the newspaper when he wanted publicity.)  I read news on the Internet but I’ve found that I do specific, targeted reading rather than general reading.  With a newspaper, I see an article I’m interested in and read it, then I glance at the rest of the page and there might be something else that catches my eye.  If I think that article might interest someone else, I clip it out, pop it in an envelope and mail it.  On the Internet, I zone in on precisely what I want to read.  I rarely jump to other links on that particular web page.

The same with looking up a definition of a word.   I like the speed of typing, say, “definition of gerrymander” into a search engine on the Internet and getting back a swift answer, but that’s the only thing I get back -- that particular definition.  Loads of ads, one telling me how I can cut down on belly fat, but there are no other words and definitions around “gerrymander” - just “gerrymander.”   In a hard copy of a dictionary, i.e. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (c. 2000), I see that definition, but then I read the words before and after that particular word.   I can see a picture of the terrible gerrymandering of 19th century Massachusetts -- looks like a griffin -- and down below that picture is a portrait of one of my favorite composers, Gershwin, which reminds me I need to listen to “Rhapsody in Blue.”  There are also definitions for “gesundheit,” “Geronimo,” “Germany,” but perhaps the most fascinating word on this two page spread is a very common one: “get.”  The definitions for that three letter word comprise one and one-half of page 739 of the aforementioned dictionary. And to show my ignorance, “got” is a passive form of “get” but we really shouldn’t use “got” when writing.  I never really knew where “got” belonged in the English language, I just knew I should think of something better!


We are always “throwing the baby out with the bath water.“  (I know that is a trite saying and that I use it frequently, but it’s such a visual one and so apropos. But, really, has anyone ever thrown a baby out with the bathwater?  www.wisegeek.com has a great history of that phrase.)  


Hard copies are good.  Virtual is good.  Why can’t we have both?  Why does one have to be sacrificed.  Why can’t both exist?  We are a large enough world, aren’t we?