I HAVE A love/hate relationship with the Amazon Kindle.
If you don’t know what the Amazon Kindle is, Amazon describes it as “a wireless reading device.” It’s about the size and shape of a book, but it functions like a handheld computer to which you can wirelessly download magazines, newspapers, “e-books,” and other forms of electronic media. My mom got one of these little gadgets for her birthday last year, and I have since watched it and its magical “electronic-paper” display with a mixture of fascination, distrust, and outright detestation.
On February 9, Amazon.com announced the release of the Kindle 2, an improved version of the original with a faster Internet connection, sleeker design, and upgraded interface. On their Web site, the Kindle 2’s creators state their ultimate goal as having “every book ever printed, in any language, all available in under 60 seconds.”
The Kindle and its successor may seem harmless, but “electronic media” is not and will never be a substitute for a real, honest-to-god book that you can hold between your own two hands. Print media is quickly being replaced by the accessibility and ease of the Internet, but good, old-fashioned books, newspapers, and magazines are a venerable source of information that have more of a place than ever in today’s ephemeral world. They possess a timelessness and permanence that are becoming all too rare as we surge forward with new technology.
It’s no surprise that electronic media is so popular. It’s quick, convenient, and available 24 hours a day with the click of a button. And I must give credit to the creators of the Kindle, because, as a voracious reader, I’m happy at least to see a product that seeks to make books more accessible and more easily available to the masses. But no matter how convenient the Kindle may be, I’m disappointed to see yet another sign of the coming of the print media apocalypse.
It’s no secret that print media is in trouble. Don’t believe me? The last time you had to write a research paper, did you start with a casual glance at Wikipedia, or did you head to Clemons without even consulting the Internet? When you’re wondering what’s going on in the world, do you head to the newsstand or do you just type “BBC.co.uk” into Firefox?
With the revolution of the pay-per-click online media industry, old-fashioned newsstand publications like magazines and newspapers are being radically outpaced. Their costly publication and distribution is no match for the instant, cheap, worldwide access granted to an article on the Internet. It terrifies me to think that there may be a day when the lights in the offices of the iconic New York Times suddenly flicker and the presses grind to a halt.
Sure, the Internet is fast and convenient. It puts boundless information at our fingertips at all hours of the day and night, from the comfort of our homes. Instead of a time-consuming trip to the library and the need to once again re-learn the Dewey decimal system, it now takes only a moment and a few clicks to find out George Clooney’s birthday, Google the ingredients needed to make steak tartare, or find who invented CPR. But the Internet is totally unregulated. And while some reputable sources exist – drudgereport.com is widely credited with breaking the Monica Lewinsky scandal – all it takes to be a “journalist” on the Internet is a few dollars to purchase your own domain name before you can start spewing your ignorant views out to a hungry, curious audience.
Furthermore, Internet sources encourage lazy, uninformed news consumption. Using Google News to figure out what’s happening with the wildfires in Australia or the Casey Anthony trial may not always lead to the most reputable sources and obliterates the distinction between different newspaper and magazine “brands” that may have unique connotations.
A magazine like The New Yorker or a newspaper like The Wall Street Journal can never be matched by dime-a-dozen online imitators, but the plethora of online options put them at danger of eventually being just another Web site, ignoring their rich and storied histories. Even their official Web sites leave something to be desired by somebody who loves the feel of pages between her fingers and wants a reading experience that doesn’t leave her with a migraine.
Call me old-fashioned, but there is something about holding a book in your hands, smelling the unmistakable scent of its pages, and dog-earing each lovingly read chapter that can never be replicated by a world of online media and electronic books bought over wireless Internet connections. Newspaper front pages and magazine covers immortalize historical moments forever with their blazing bold headlines and photos. Great works of literature survive in their first, unabridged, un-edited volumes, still available in the rare book collections of libraries around the world as physical memorabilia of a time and place so unlike the world of today. Print media achieves a tangibility and immutability that can’t be found on the Internet; a book never suffers from a broken link.
I appreciate the convenience of the Internet, but it will never be a substitute for the influence and timelessness of great literature and great journalism.
Michelle Lamont is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
