I am examining the differences between the print version of the Argus Leader and the webpage of the newspaper.
The first thing that comes to mind is the tactile sensations that are created by holding the physical newspaper. It is a sensation fraught with nostalgia. Books have been a large part of my life, but it seems the older I get, the less I have a chance to hold them. Compared to the instant gratification and graphics of the internet, paper print seems like old haps. Maybe then, this is the reason that the newspaper refuses to be put out of it's misery. The older demographics cannot let go of a day gone by. Holding the paper is the literary equivalent of a safety blanket for them, it's comforting, it's warm, but it isn't really useful at all. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone pre-30's who read their local paper. And why would they? Who wants to read what some over paid editor has to say when I can listen to all my friends' and family's opinions?
The second, and most obvious thing when it comes to digital newspaper is space. The physical copy of the paper is forced by budget and size constraints, and looks very... unprofessional? The website, cradled softly by my large monitor looks neat and proper, ready to be let open the gates of knowledge, but only if you want it to. Compared to the physical paper which looks like a messy, dirty, unorganized slop of useless garbage, ever ready to belch forth whatever happened to be most important to the editor that day. Though they are sending the same message, and in fact, usually contain the same stories, the physical newspaper seems a filthy relic of a bygone age, while the digital paper is a clean alternative to those archaic rags.
You're pretty harsh on that old stand-by. I fear the day when there's not a clear connection between some physical space, physical person, physical product that brings me the news.
ReplyDeleteYour one comment sounds a bit like "the daily me": "Who wants to read what some over paid editor has to say when I can listen to all my friends' and family's opinions?"
Are you being ironic? There's a big difference between the general peoples' opinions, as good as they might be, and those who earn their livings gathering and analyzing the events of the day.
If I'm seeking information and not opinions, give me that "filthy rag" any day of the week.
I was being very harsh. For my contemporary rhetoric class I wrote a long piece on the current state of writing, and I fear that some of my vitriol for that particular subject liked through.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you know what you like, but for most people my age, there is no physical product for many of the services we use. We have reached the point that the physical product just slows down it's delivery, and there lies the crux of the issue. Speed.
I'm not being ironic. There is sort of an old boys club that comes along with the fields of literature and writing. In a bygone age, the only people who wrote were writers. Many people look upon those days with longing. Not me. I embrace the days were everyone can be a contributor to the "news." You yourself encourage us to write on our blogs about ideas and events in our daily lives. Who is gathers and analyzes more events in our lives then us? The idea that I need someone in an office half-way around the world to tell me what to think is a little... old-fashioned? This brings me to a topic I brought up in the aforementioned essay. In contemporary news/media, people want speed and people want convenience. Why would they read a long drawn out article when they can read a friend's status post with a quick summary? Especially if they realize they aren't interested in the topic to begin with. If one thing has come about from the internet is a sort of literary Darwinism. Only the information that people are willing to consume survives. Quick, to the point, with good sources. This is the news of the future. Unfortunately for newspaper, they are only 1 for 3.