Newsprint

Far fewer people seem to be bothered by the death of newspapers than I would have hoped.

My mother and I delivered The Denver Post for a year when I was in high school. Every morning that year, I came to school with newsprint on my hands. It stayed on my hands long enough to wear off on the pages of my high school, college, and grad school newspapers, where I was a writer and editor for each. Around the breakfast table every day too, I would finger through the inky pages and take in the day’s events.

That other Denver newspaper – The Rocky Mountain News – closed its doors on Friday, two months short of its 150th anniversary. It joined the ranks of dozens of other newspapers that are either teetering precariously on the precipice of dissolution or have already gone over the edge. Too few people seem bothered by it.

Newspapers are a source of information, opinion, and communication. They establish, in long form writing, the pulse and lifeblood of the communities in which they publish, and they do so in a way unequaled in any other medium.

Perhaps because we have been largely antipathetic towards the closing down of the small, local churches in our towns, we are also largely antipathetic towards the newspapers.

Without churches on street corners, we no longer hear the bells ringing when a new marriage begins, nor do we pass by the dark funeral processions on our way home that remind us that from dust we came, and to dust we return.

Without newspapers on street corners, we no longer are told of important events happening to the people beyond our neighborhoods, nor are we told of the victories, casualties, triumphs, struggles, births, and deaths in our towns and cities.

Our faith thrives on communication – on words – to make sense of our world. Ours is the tradition that boldly sustained literature and oratory in the darkest of times. And yet we seem curiously ambivalent that the town criers – our local newspapers –are falling silent while we watch.

There is no theological case to be made for reading newspapers, but there is a moral case for them: That we live, work, and play in this world, and ought never to become detached from what is happening in it and all the parts of it that are bigger than our own spheres of influence.

Pick up and read Scripture; “eat this book,” as Isaiah is told.

Afterwards, pick up and read your local newspaper too; become connected to your community and the neighbors you’ve never met. And maybe, just maybe, pray about what you read too.

“You will hear of wars and rumors of wars.”

But not if you aren’t reading.

--

Christian is a network administrator, news correspondent, and occasional writer and photographer. He is a graduate from Calvin Theological Seminary and Calvin College, and lives in Grand Rapids, Michigan, with his wife Beth.

Login to comment

Comments (18)

I am concerned, from a democratic perspective, about losing good quality reporting, especially at the local level but also nationally. I am certainly part of the problem, as I read all my news online. I'm not sure if things are quite so dramatic as you suggest, though they surely are bad. However, I do think it is far too easy for us to not invest in our particular communities in an age of global media, and I agree that it is perhaps part of our jobs as the body of christ to know what God is doing in our own community.

As a side note, I think you used antipathetic when you in fact meant apathetic.
I wouldn't take it so hard. I think people (at least I know this is true of myself) are getting more information than ever before via the internet. Newspapers (nostalgia aside) were an information bottle-neck. You had to sift through the news that other people thought were important. Now you can just get the news you want anywhere you want it.
I'm sentimental about newspapers, too. But there are some things I won't miss about them if/when they die:

- environmental waste: using up that much paper and ink to make a product that the average person only reads a small fraction of is environmentally unconscionable.
- self-important top-down imperiousness
- fetish for fires and violent crimes
- schlocky sentimentality ("Local photogenic girl discovers magic of Christmas season")
- oblivion to religion. Our local GR Press's Religion section is an exception. But for the most part, the traditional news media doesn't 'get religion' -- see www.getreligion.org/?p=3
I too delivered the San Francisco Chronicle some 45 years ago. But, in theses times where half of what you read is adolations for some and lies about others, the New York Times and a few others, why read? Read your bible everyday with reverence towards those you may help one day. Talk to those in your community about what is needed to help those in your community. Then step out of the church and walk those streets, giving of yourself to others. I believe now that our own government and those who run it will not. Jesus did not depend on the governments of his time to give to the people as their greed shown through as our leaders greed shows through. You should give to your church with the idea of not getting anything back. In God's Grace John
a moral reason to no-longer read the newspaper:

1. newspapers waste paper, which is made from trees, which God decided to use to make oxygen, which God wired humans to live off of. wasting paper seems to be wasting the very fabric of who God created us to be.

2. newspapers only give limited reports. newspapers are limited in size and are therefore limited in depth and honesty. they must be comprised of quick soundbites and exciting headlines. even longer articles are limited. the internet allows any person to research any article with virtually infinite depth.

let's say you wanted to look at the effects of hurrican katrina on the formation of new government law. first off, that wouldn't come up in a paper because it is old news, you would be extrememly limited in your perspective of the event. also, since it isn't new "headline" news, the newspaper wouldn't carry a long, in-depth, fair article on it, it might make a several paragraph article.

newspapers pump out old news. anyone with TV or the Internet or a Radio knows that Lebron James scored 47 points. but the paper doesn't tell you that until the next day (i know that sports scores may not seem relevant, but they do offer a tremendous example).
Personally, I hope that newspapers stick around for a while. It's easy to argue that in today's media-rich culture, where we're informed of things nearly as they happen via the Internet and TV, the newspaper is redundant and slow.

However, the newspaper provides something that neither the Internet nor cable TV news can--a broader, community-based perspective.

Sure, it's great that you can choose which websites you visit, or which news channel you want to get your news from, but in doing so, you are purposely choosing a narrow perspective. Certainly, a single newspaper article will only present a narrow perspective as well, but it is contained within a larger context of a newspaper that most likely contains articles from dozens of reporters, all with different opinions and points of view.

When you watch CNN, or MSNBC, or Fox News, or Comedy Central to get your news, you know what perspective they're coming from. 24/7, it's consistent. And once you find your favorite (usually the one you agree with) you never need to tune-in to any other. It's the same with websites--find your favorite news site or your favorite blogs and you never need to pay attention to anything beyond those sites.

What I appreciate about newspapers is that they often challenge how I am already thinking about an issue or event. That's what good journalism should do. I'm afraid we've redefined "good journalism" as "journalism I agree with." And that's dangerous.

Sure, it's still possible to get online and access news from a variety of different sources, presented with a wide range of opinions, but I doubt that many of us do that. I know that I don't.
Adam, you wrote:
<<2. newspapers only give limited reports. newspapers are limited in size and are therefore limited in depth and honesty. they must be comprised of quick soundbites and exciting headlines. even longer articles are limited. the internet allows any person to research any article with virtually infinite depth.>>

This is really an argument against *television* news. Nothing is more "limited" than a 30-second news item that only tells the most flashy details of a story.
So I'd argue that without newspapers, and their ability to get more in depth and report the full story, that our knowledge of the community and world around us would be FAR more limited. How many people do you know who will see that 30-second story on the TV and then go to the Internet to research all the details in "virtually infinite depth"? Not too many, I'm sure. Newspaper reporters do that work for you.
Also, newspapers may be limited in size by how many advertisements they sell, but physical size *never* limits a true journalist's honesty.
In closing, I'd like to encourage you to check out this story, published in The St. Petersburg Times, and then tell me what other form of daily news media would go so in-depth to report on an aspect of its community.
I sometimes joke that I am so old, I can remember when journalism was an honest profession. My uncle published a community paper in Raytown, Missouri, and I remember him and my cousins hand-setting the type. I also remember touring the New York Times in my high school journalism class--they were so proud of their Linotype machines. For the last many years I haven't been able to read a newspaper without being outraged by the bias. Even the movie reviews contain comments that insult conservatives, Christians, the military, and/or Republicans. Yes, it's sad that we are losing the community forums that newspapers have provided, but the newspaper industry hasn't served the American public very well for at least a generation. We're a conservative people with a left-wing press. Now we are in a transition as great as the one started by Gutenberg, and I am greatly encouraged by what I see happening.
While I appreciate your concern about the demise of the local newspaper, I'm not convinced by your reasoning.

Yes, there is a lengthy tradition of both oral and written word within the church. But that tradition has covered many different media - initially through handwritten letters that were copied over and over, through monks producing elaborate, illuminated texts, through to the traditional printing press. Reading and writing isn't going away, it's just shifting medium again, to a digital form.

Likewise, the local newspaper is able to sustain itself through digital form too. Yes, it needs to work out how to redefine itself, but this is by no means impossible. Check out the work of the Lawrence Journal World. However, many local newspapers seem unwilling to try and make this shift, and I'm not convinced that there is a moral obligation for me to support a business that is unwilling to make itself profitable in the new economy.

See the latest in:

Promotion

promo 1 promo 2
promo 3 promo 4

Donate Now