CONFESSIONS OF A 26-YEAR-OLD NEWSPAPER READER
The story of the demise of print journalism, and its greying readership, is well-trodden. Less common is the sad tale of the 20-something print reader caught between rising subscription rates and supercilious glances from blogging, twittering contemporaries. "Did you pay for that?" They ask this with their eyes as their lips turn into a vague sneer. Indeed, I did. I am 26 years old and I subscribe to a print newspaper, an expensive one, seven days a week. I am part of a dying breed, fatefully attached to a dying medium: the print-loving progeny of the internet age.
Why do I pay for what others get for free? Older generations are pardoned. They indulge in newsprint out of habit and nostalgia. They grew up with ink on their hands. Price increases are met with solidarity. But young readers seemingly have no excuse; we are not supposed to browse vintage shops for news. If it's printed, it must be already out of date. And the subscription price is a bit steep if the most useful elements in print are the photos and the crossword.
Still, I persist. I think print is good for your health. Get away from the screen for a bit. Most of us spend too much time slumped in a backlit stare. Once freed you will find that print publications have intellectual cachet in the public sphere. A Mac laptop says little about its owner; the iPod user is indistinguishable. But the intern who arrives brandishing a distinctively salmon copy of the Financial Times is going places (if maybe a bit too keen). Emerging from the subway with a big-screen kindle tucked under one’s arm does not have the same effect as a thumbed and refolded copy of the New York Times (nor can it double as an umbrella). Classic.
Contrary to what internet networkers say, print is a social tool too. It just requires physical proximity. Fighting over the front section is a healthy morning ritual, and dividing and conquering a paper is a fundamental weekend activity. In public, a newspaper makes for a great shield. Broadsheets are particularly good for avoiding people you recognise on the train. Hiding behind a laptop is difficult. Forget the blackberry.Unlike many internet news providers, most print papers have editors, those forgotten souls who tend to improve copy and make deliberate choices about what is newsworthy, what is worth printing and whether it belongs on A1 or A24. This underappreciated trade [while available at prime outlets online - editor's note] is guaranteed in a print edition. As Paul Starr points out in an engaging printed debate with Steven Johnson in the May issue of Prospect: edited papers provide objective general knowledge of what is going on that day. Print forces readers to glance at the news before discarding it for the sport pages. On the internet, sports sites and partisan blogs are bookmarked; all headlines are seen through a chosen filter.
So I cheer when newspapers fight back. Up go the pay-walls! Yes, internet readers should pay a bit and subsidise my penchant for print. Americans (ie, frontier backwoods types) once rebelled against taxes on whiskey, but George Washington later persuaded them that they were necessary. Surely Rupert Murdoch, Arthur Sulzberger and others can get recalcitrant readers to do the same. Otherwise printed media will disappear when all the grey ladies and men who buy them die off.
Without paper, how will I spend my time? Perhaps I should consider buying a record player.
Picture credit: bobster855, Pingu1963 (both via Flickr)
Email this page
Delicious
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Comments
Contrarian
July 2, 2009 - 23:38 — Tac Anderson (not verified)It's nice to see others swim upstream even if I don't.
As another Gen Y who
July 3, 2009 - 12:45 — Katie (not verified)As another Gen Y who believes that print should not die, I empathise, but really, even I can't see a single convincing argument in this article about why print should not be abandoned. Re editorial, the Ed has already stepped in so I shan't elaborate, but an umbrella, and a tool to hide behind? Come on, you (and print) can do better than this... Here's my 2 cents - print is not dying, it is merely changing to fuse/complement digital media. People will still pay for quality, detailed, well-researched journalism that acts as support to their instantaneous digital media diet. Digital sound and video 'bites' in particular are things that can be well-paired with 'slower', but more in-depth print.
green
July 5, 2009 - 23:19 — lem (not verified)7x52weeks= 364 newspapers a year.
That is a lot of paper.(hopefully, not all of them are the bulky NYT)
Though your candidness (and love of old ways) is much appreciated, i believe that, in light of the overflowing information of the internet age, we should evolve differently from our previous generation.
We ought to become greener.
And you spill coffee on your
July 6, 2009 - 08:30 — VisitorAnd you spill coffee on your paper with no worries.
p.s. Also, the Times online
July 6, 2009 - 08:31 — Visitor (not verified)p.s. Also, the Times online layout is so crap that you're practically forced to read the print edition.
Why paper is preferable
July 6, 2009 - 11:39 — DJStahl (not verified)There are three main reasons paper's preferable.
I cover more ground. In a given half hour with a paper, I skim dozens of pages and read several articles. Newspaper articles are written in "inverse pyramid" style, they taught us. So I get the who-what-where-when-why in the first couple paragraphs. If I want to read more, I have the option. A professionally-written headline should also summarize the info.
By contrast, when I read online, I'm more likely to read just a few articles in the same half hour, and read them start to finish. The structure encourages it. I click, then scroll. There's also a commitment, unconscious of course, in clicking on a link, and more commitment in waiting that moment for it to load.
What are omitted especially are the little articles shoehorned into pages with the glamorous national and international news. Insights, sidebars, quirky news, and local news. I'm better rounded, and a better citizen, when I read the physical paper.
I'd bet a study would show people simply read more words per hour with a paper than with a screen.
The question of wasting trees has no meaning if I'm scrupulous to recycle the paper.
There are plenty of ordinary physical situations when paper's preferable. I read in the bathroom often, especially in the tub after a run. Don't want a computer there. On the subway, I'd rather not show off my laptop to every stranger. On the bus or in the back of a car, my wi-fi might or might not work reliably. And I don't have to worry about battery life. And it's more social: I can share sections of the paper. The beach, the pool, the park -- plenty of places where a laptop is heavy and at risk. The form-factor and ergonomics of a Blackberry aren't as conducive to reading the news, and the fees are more costly than just getting a paper. Deterred by these things, without the paper, I'm more likely to just stay uninformed.
Scott McNealy said privacy is over -- get used to it. But Hegel said things occur in cycles, and paper makes it easier to keep invasion of privacy at bay. Most people don't enjoy having a stranger reading over their shoulders. When I read online, I'm always aware that various corporate interests are carefully noting what I'm reading. In a way I'm glad they keep reminding me, by posting ads.
SOMETHING ROTTEN IN DENMARK, SO TO SPEAK
July 7, 2009 - 15:22 — Visitor (not verified)"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark," so to speak (and no offense to Danes): The author extols the virtues of print media yet all his citations are URLs!
It's OK to hate the mac generation.
July 10, 2009 - 11:52 — Amartya Biswas (not verified)Although some may find your anachronistic views somewhat cantankerous, I applaud you Mr. Ewing for having genuine 'e-balls'. We need more soldiers like you willing to take a stand against the growing legion of mac-embracing fresh ones who feel they can be enlightened by the top stories on today's yahoo news feed.
I too am a member of today's youth who enjoys a little dash of ink with my breakfast, and would love nothing more than for this to remain a staple of our diet for future generations.
Post new comment