The case for print

1




      There is a generation which regards print as being a relic of the past.  Newspapers are read digitally on mobile phones or laptops.  Anything else is regarded as quaintly old-fashioned.  It is not only the young who think like this.  There are plenty of protagonists for the digital-only way of life among the older generation.   These include newspaper editors.   Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian for the past 20 years, has established his paper as a global phenomenon of digital publication - the most widely read internationally, which is a triumph for a formerly small circulation, leftish liberal newspaper.  It has brought the paper hordes of new readers as well as advertising and promotional  successes, combined with sponsored events and organised membership of its readers.
      At which point I want to make a case for the printed edition, still surviving, as well as for all the other daily and weekend printed newspapers.   Alan Rusbridger has undertaken to keep the printed edition going, so long as it is wanted and if the cost can be afforded.
       I have a laptop and an iphone on which I can read Guardian stories and features as well as those of the other papers. But my day is incomplete without the sound of the arrival of the paper on the doorstep in the early morning, and  the London Evening Standard later in the day - its huge popularity gives the lie to the idea that printed newspapers are no longer needed.
        If I am away I go out to the shops to buy a paper.   That goes not only for this country but for Manhattan, Milan, Berlin and any other place I might have happened to be working in, and if I can't get an overseas edition of the Guardian, then I'll take the local paper.  I just need one to carry around, which I can read while I am waiting for the train, or the cup of coffee.   And, spotting a like-minded friend or colleague, can point to a story on an inside page that suddenly interests me.   This ability to share information easily, in a way you cannot with a computer and the handling it needs, is one of the strongest reasons for appreciating a print copy.   The small Metro printed newspaper, offered free to London travellers is continually popular.
    
        Of course, it is not only the carrying around which is the strongest argument for retaining the print editions.  That is the pleasure of carrying the delivered paper, with a cup of tea, back to bed to devour the latest headlines and stories.   This may need a second cup because it is likely to become a long and enjoyable study of national and international affairs only barely touched on by the TV news and even the Today programme, good though that is.   So the result is to be better-informed and readier for the challenges of the day if all that material has been even partially digested.
      It also means that the printed edition cannot carry as its lead story on the front page the same lead story which was carried on the late-night TV news the day before, which makes the challenge of selecting the best stories for the front page a demanding one - but also one that helps to maintain the intellectual sharpness and competitiveness of those given the power of choice.
    I can remember when TV news first started its round-the-clock coverage, saying to my editor at the time that now there was no point in having a front page any longer.  He brushed this aside sharply, saying we must just get on with meeting the challenge, which we did.     And the present editors are doing the same.  The Times has broad and excellent news coverage in its print edition and so does the Telegraph and to some extent the Independent, though it is constrained financially.


     News coverage costs money.  C.P. Scott, the original founder of the trust which runs the Guardian, was famous for his quote "Comment is free, facts are sacred" and in modern times editors mentally change this to "Comment is free, facts are expensive."


ends