I'm reading newspapers again

It's not that there isn't value in finding news and interesting articles online. I would never have read this very blog post were I not an avid web news junkie, following random links and reading numerous articles. But you've got a great point. The newspaper offers something the web can't--a tangible, textured, articulate medium for communicating the happenings in our world. Maybe I'll try reading the newspaper once again.

It's easy to recognize the much greater convenience of the internet as a source of news, but I can't remember the last time I read a news story on the internet that I wasn't linked to by a friend, or that wasn't "hard" news (i.e., stories about how some Arizona cable viewers saw porn during the Super Bowl last night).

I love the routine of reading a newspaper over breakfast. I'm a KU student and the on-campus apartment I live in provides free copies of the New York Times, the KC Star, USA Today and the local Lawrence paper in the lobby of my building. There are also several places on campus that I can pick up KU's student paper and the Wall-Street Journal. I mainly read the news sections of the NYT, as well as the Friday film section, and occasionally I'll give the WSJ a look. And of course, KU's student paper - on gamedays, especially.

I'm reading newspapers again.

Coincidently, I also made up my mind to.....so far it was mainly on the Pot.....ofcourse its more convenient than the net....

Some of the most serene moments of my life have been reading a newspaper in the early hours of the day. Somehow the glare of a computer screen does not lend itself to serenity.

And without the newspapers, where would we get crosswords, sudoku, or Marmaduke?

The problem I have with the internet is that it is so poorly organized. There's so much information I find myself giving up much of the time. With newspapers I find everything I need to know, in the place it is supposed to be. I can read half of it or all of it or skim without scrolling or clicking the page down button. I can ignore advertisements if I choose. I have yet to have an ad slowly drift into my line of site as I begin an article. At least it hasn't happened yet.

News papers will still become archaic, just you wait. More and more net news sites will be as direct as what you wished Huffington Post was, simply because that's where net-news folks will flock to.

Technology will progreess to the point that one day, you'll be reclining on a couch reading news on your i-phone and cross-referencing with Google, while your grand-child is competing against a video-gamer from Osaka on the newest version of the Nintendo Wii (which is already capable of pitting youngsters against other gamers from around the world).

Basically, we're in the "it sucked back then" phase of i-net news, where we will one day reminisce of how laugably inept it was compared to todays net news. Reading an encyclopedia was WAY better than spending an hour back on the early Dial-up days. But now, Google and Wikipedia have all but completely made people forget that libraries exist.

Just you wait. The same thing will happen with newspapers, magazines, and books altogether.

I find that I have similar feelings of irritation when looking at some of these "news" websites myself. Unfortunately, I find myself also getting increasingly irritated, and depressed, about the state of newspapers in this country, when I look at the two local papers I get, the San Jose Mercury News and the San Francisco Chronicle. They are becoming almost painful to read, the way they are becoming both smaller and more superficial.

The Chronicle, at least, still has some occasional pretentions about acting like a good, metro daily paper, but it seems like the Merc has practially given up, it's really kind of sad.

On a happier note, wasn't it great to see Pete Seeger at that pre-inauguration concert?

Despite the consensus that newspapers are on the way out, perhaps
interest in them will be renewed, just as fashions tend to reappear. This does not seem to be an unimaginable reaction to an increasingly technological world. As a news junkie who has grown up in a world of online news, I personally would embrace a return to print news and all that the medium signifies about American culture and creativity. However, I would mention that newspapers seeking to become mirrors of their online counterparts are significantly less valid. Only if newspapers are able to maintain or increase their level of journalistic quality would we all benefit from their resurgence.

Thanks for the nice example of cyber-frustration.

The one thing I don't miss about my reduced newspaper time is the ink covered hands at the end of it. Solution? Keep a stamp pad open by your keyboard, and every so often touch it lightly.

HuffPost, man how I was on that website 10 hours a day during election season. Now it's back to reading the online NYT every morning - HuffPo seems to dwell on every little thing anymore, nothing major, nothing huge.

I think that blogs like Huffington Post are vital during times when there's so much news that a newspaper and the 24/7 press can't possibly cover. HuffPo, DailyKOS, and a number of websites have dozens of people dedicated to nitpicking every piece of an election, every bit of news, every joke, gaffe, and celebrity weight loss success story.

Their recent surge in relevancy has resulted in a bit of a backlash - Chris Matthews, for instance, doesn't like news bloggers very much because, as he says, journalists don't do that kind of stuff. Not true, seeing as many a newsman is pretty much forced into blogging and/or special internet commentary, but the debate rages on: How useful is a blog?

In my opinion, and I am a blogger, is that they're vital, but they cannot be one's only source, lest one be led astray by big, bold, red text. HuffPost may have been started by somebody who ran for governor in CA, a woman respected enough to guest host events on the BBC or appear frequently on cable news shows, but with newspapers reeling, where are young, new journalists to cut their teeth? Is there a market for local stringers anymore? Will your college newspaper clippings get your foot in the door?

The story you mention is a wire story, and I've never heard of that wire, either. Did the NYT use the same source? Did IPS jump on the story days late? I'm not sure if I'm for or against a blog using a wire service for news. The best parts of Huffington Post are the bloggers, at least they were. Now? Eh. I guess blaring headlines will have to suffice until 2010/2012.

Ebert: The New York Times actually covered the story. I don't know where IPA got their info.

First - Congratulations on your DGA honor. You so deserve it. You and Siskel et al have pointed me to more good films than I can shake a stick at. Your knowledge of filmmaking is akin to what Bobby Shore knew about standards.

I have the same trouble as you when I'm reading something on the internet. I loved Huffington Post when it started. I'm a day one subscriber/member. I rarely go to that site anymore as I don't seem to really find much to read. Lots of liberal opinion pieces from people who need to get a book mention in. Lots of comments from those who seem to know Larry David personally "Great going Larry! Can't wait for the next season of Curb!" (or worse, they have a great idea for an episode of Curb).

Going to the other extremse - I never have a problem figuring out what Ann Coulter is talking about. She clouds nothing she writes in
acronyms nor web/psychobabble. Never waters down her opinion.

I have found great comfort in reading 40 year old newspaper clippings. When I was in college there was never enough time to read everything I needed to read. This is a good quality of the internet. Someone somewhere has probably scanned something I missed in high school and archived it somewhere on the net.

I've been looking at the photo of you and your lovely wife on the Rogerebert.com page. My final opinion is to heck with the award, I'll take the fabulous babe..... Keep saving that aisle seet for me.

Ebert: I also always know what Ann Coulter is talking about. But not why.

For as long as I can remember, my ritual with the paper has been:

Sports section.
Front page to the back, with the Letters to the Editors last.
Comics.
Puzzles.

There's nothing like sitting down with a newspaper and reading it. Same thing with magazines. I know that I can get more up to date and fancier looking news stories online, but there's something about reading carefully arranged pieces of papers that hopefully will never go out of style in my lifetime.

Reading a newspaper online, to me, is like watching a movie on your computer. It becomes more of a hassle to actually enjoy what you are reading/watching because you must do so much more. For online papers, like you said, you gotta navigate through the links; for movies, you have to limit your viewing window to the monitor, which leaves the movie hopeless to affect you in any way.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, keep it old school.

Reading the newspaper is, for me and many people I know, a daily meditation. We feel more connected to the rest of the world, sitting in the booth at McDonald's or at the counter of the local diner or at our own kitchen table, which at my house is covered by stacks of other papers and bills and such, and I assume other folks' kitchen tables look just as busy. At McDonald's, the most popular meeting place in town, we pass the four local papers around to friends and neighbors (the people sitting at the next table, who sometimes happen to live in the house a few yards away from ours), which forces us to speak at least a handful of words, whether we feel up to conversation or not. The people in my family speak of going to McDonald's not to eat lunch or dinner (which is called dinner and supper, respectively, around here) but to "read the papers." When we get there and the papers are all taken, we gladly wait our turn and soon enough find ourselves talking to someone we know. When the papers are there, however, we can grab a handful and bury our faces in them until we hear something that sparks the interacting instinct in us. Our newspapers, you see, help us immensely, in so many ways, intellectually as well as socially, and, if I'm not mistaken, spiritually perhaps. The restaurants in our town that don't have newspapers, I've found, don't get much business. They apparently haven't figured it out yet.

Feeling more connected to the rest of the world, it seems, makes us feel more connected to ourselves, having some greater sense of our place in the scheme of things. And it's just something we do that feels American. Sure they have newspapers elsewhere on the globe, but that's just something I know a guy is doing on a New York City subway and a nun is doing in California and a high schooler is being asked to do in his social studies class. They're for information, yes; but they're also an instrument of social order, I believe. Lord, I hope they don't stop printing the newspaper. I think I, and many of the people I treasure the company of, would lose so much.

I agree enthusiastically about your passion for newspapers. As a 24-year-old undergraduate, my peers constantly heckle me for my insistence on reading the New York Times or the local newspaper when I could get that information "for free" (i.e., behind a wall of colorful and intrusive ads) online. They seem to pity me for my old-fashioned tendency toward the printed word, but it is I who pity them.

One habit I've picked up is to read the local newspaper of each city I visit when I travel, and I use this as a lead-in to let you know that while in Chicago recently, I made a habit of buying both the Sun-Times and the Tribune every day. Questions of journalistic quality aside, you can guess which one was more enjoyable and fun. I wish all newspapers were printed as the Sun-Times is, however; the New York Times is so big it gets a little clumsy and unwieldy.

Ebert: Papers are growing smaller. The pages were much wider 20 years ago.

The actual story is a tiny text island in the ocean of flashy ads and red herring links. I tend to copy all the text of various stories that I read to a text document before starting the reading itself. Amazon Kindle sounds like a good-alternative.

In my Introduction to Journalism class, one of the first comments I got from my professor was that newspaper articles are designed in an upside down pyramid. From most important to least important -- it allows people to read the headline, the first few lines, and say, 'There, I have it.'

But he said that's not the way you should read them; even the last few sections offer something that might be better known than not, but many times those are shaven off by the editor.

So when I look at hard news articles, I try to read all of it. The local newspaper and the Washington Post is usually all I need, but as far as electronic resources go, Firefox is really convenient -- it drops down a whole list of Latest Headlines. But the articles seem so shrimpy, even with digital pictures and streaming vids attached to them. You might think, like I do, why there wouldn't be more included without the hassle of limited space for an editor.

Good entry!

Ebert: Everything is info-nuggets.

I have been thinking about getting my news solely from the internet with the hopes of decreasing my carbon footprint. I think my family throws out my weight in newspapers, magazines and comic books every month! I might actually do it once getting information off the web doesn't require the same frame of mind needed for processing po-mo installation art pieces. Not that going on a little information rollercoaster ride can't be fun. But for now I like to use the web like an index to suppliment the news I read in print. An index that may or may not have been written by an attention deficit 12 year old in a Kentucky basement.

Ebert: Report and write are being replaced as skills by surf and link.

Sorry about your problems with the 'Huffy.' Maybe you've just barked up the proverbial wrong tree. A brief personal example of why I'm addicted to the computer for fact finding missions. For awhile now I've been spouting that to really understand how we got into Iraq, a good place to start is the Office of Special Plans. Usually got a glazed stare, often worse. So I figured I'd get a little back up. I started simply by entering osp in Wiki. Now The first blue entry did grab my attention-Oblate Sisters of Providence. Had to check that out. {If you get a second, take a look and pass it on to the Mrs}
Anyhow I got back to the Office of Special Plans. In the third paragraph, clicked on Senate Intel Report on Pre-war intel in Iraq. Got the SSCI website. Scrolled to the bottom. Typed-2007 iraq report- in the 'search' area.Google came up.Clicked 1st entry and-bingo-June 8,2008 press release for the latest findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Iraq, and ,yes, there it is, direct reference to the odious Office of Special Plans and its foul cousin,The Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group in good ole paragraph seven. Printed that puppy up and now I have my back up. Took me less than 5 minutes the 1st time, under a minute now. Hope you get my drift? Nothing like it since Jesus spoke to the masses,as far as I'm concerned.
One word on DGA thing-WOW!

On the internet it's the tinfoil hat news for me all the way. Why bother with what official reporters have to say when some guy with psychic powers can tell you that Dick Cheney is in fact a lizard being from Planet Nibiru? It explains everything just as well and solves the problem of people seeing you buy it at the convenience store. Can't wait to find out where Obama is really from.

I thought you made a very good point when you wrote about IPS and the difficulty you had in finding any real information about it. I have concerns about accountability/credibility regarding a number of entities, not the least of which are those which can't seem to come out and just say who they are, what they do, why they're doing it and why they - among us all - should be doing it.

If you have the energy for it, here's Wikipedia's entry for IPS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_Press_Service.

Not that it matters.

Roger,

As an expat with near-zero access to English-language newspapers, let me offer advice for more productive internet reading: RSS. Download NetNewsWire, subscribe to RSS feeds from the papers you want to follow, and just like that you'll be able to read all of them before your coffee gets cold.

Sorry, no comics, classifieds, or crosswords. Also no finger smudges, and no recycling.

Cheers,

Eric

Hey there Roger.

Do we ascribe less value to something, the easier it was to acquire?
Even information?

The best meals of our lives for instance?
It's likely the meal which was prepared with time and care and love.
The sort that the college kids look forward to most of all on their trips back home.
Or perhaps just a Steak 'N Shake meal.
(Smile. I love Steak 'N Shake)

So I think that the same goes with printed text.

You're wandering by your bookshelf and you pull off an old favorite. No real reason why. You pulled it off because you did. And it's got some age to it. The cover is missing? Maybe many of the pages are folded at the corners...who knows?
But there's a permanancy to it. An old dusty goodness that wasn't there when you were Thirteen. But it's there now. Yet the book is the same.

Can you imagine as a boy or young man, having read your Great Books, your Sacred Cows, on a computer screen?
How weird would that have been?

You're reading "Catcher in the Rye" (Or Whatever), and then there's a pop-up for Cialis or something.
Or your battery's running low.
Or you need to take a break 'cause your eyes hurt from looking at that screen. You haven't blinked in 30 minutes after all.
Or a IM from CleverFriend99.
Or you want to flip back to that first conversation Holden had with Phoebe, only you don't want to navigate back to the page, 'cause you'll have to scroll text....and oooops, you decided to anyway, and you accidentally read the last paragraph of the novel because you messed up.

And then maybe you would have realized that you should have just read the book in Book form.
Printed page in hand.
A technology impossible to screw up.
Or improve upon.

Anyway, Your article immediately sprung this exchange to mind. It's an exchange from Joss Whedon's (perfect in my opinion) TV show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
GILES: Old School Librarian Type.
JENNY: New School Computer Lab Teacher.
Original Airdate. (1997)

GILES: Truthfully, I'm even less anxious to be around computers than I used to be.

JENNY: Well, it was your book that started all the trouble, not a computer. Honestly, what is it about them that bothers you so much?

GILES: The smell.

JENNY: Computer's don't smell, Rupert.

GILES: I know! Smell is the most powerful trigger to the memory there is. A certain flower or a, a whiff of smoke can bring up experiences... long forgotten. Books smell. Musty and, and, and, and rich. The knowledge gained from a computer, is, uh, it... it has no, no texture, no, no context. It's, it's there and then it's gone. If it's to last, then, then the getting of knowledge should be, uh, tangible, it should be, um... smelly.

JENNY: Well! You really are an old-fashioned boy, aren't you?
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Season 1. Episode 10."

P.S. I'm an old-fashioned type as well.
But I get my news via the Internet.
Alas.....

Take Care as always Roger.
And thanks for writing so much.

- Slater

The ability to read papers online is a godsend for those of us who enjoy newspapers of other countries, which are either unavailable where we are, and, when they, almost always a day or two late, and prohibitively expensive. Still, nothing beats physically holding the paper, turning the pages, finding stories you would otherwise miss online. The joy of buying a fresh copy of The Sunday Times (UK), weighing a virtual ton with its innumerable sections and countless pages, and then reading it for two days is one that simply cannot be replicated.

As someone who grew up in a suburb of Chicago, I can recall the family reading the Trib, the Sun-Times, and the Daily news. During the "Great Snow" of '67, my grandfather volunteered to drive to a distant town to pick up newspapers for the entire neighboorhood, since home delivery to our neck of the woods was canceled due to the weather. So the news junkie gene was passed down to me. I'd hate to be without a newspaper. Besides, after reading the newspaper and soaking up all the news, the paper itself is great for soaking up spills under the pet food dish. Can't do that with the Huffington Post.

When it comes to getting the news, which I confess most of which I read online, I go to:

The New York Times
Reuters
Associated Press (redirects you, but you’re tracking from the source now.)
Vancouver Sun (Canadian)
Globe and Mail (Canadian)
The National Post (Canadian)
London Times
Guardian (UK)
Chicago Sun-Times – love Jack Higgins’ political cartoons.
Huffington Post (less so these days though and for reasons sited by Roger.)
Washington Post

If it takes too long to find a story, I track it down with Google and get it that way. And I use Firefox, which helps. I used to read a daily newspaper when I lived at home, but these days it’s pretty much all digital. I do miss the pleasure of being able to crash on the sofa with a cup of coffee and just read, though. But I’m too curious to be content with just one newspaper – I want to see what’s going on everywhere else, too!

I’m surrounded by paper though, which perhaps accounts for why I don’t miss it as much as Roger. My apartment is full of supplies - from imported French “Arches” watercolor stock to sketch books and such. There are days when I’m positively drowning in paper!

I lived online during your elections which I followed voraciously, trading passionate and opinionated e-mails with a staff editor/writer for a magazine in New York whom I’ve been pen-pals with for over 14 yrs and have never met! Note: he went to Venice and upon his return, looked up the Grand Caffe Chioggia; I’d made a website for the café and how he found me etc. Now that I can breathe again thanks to Sarah Palin never getting any closer to the White House than a joke on SNL, I’ve got back to snooping around the Arts section and of course, looking at political cartoons!

Speaking of the Arts section, I came across this Saturday:

BOB STRAUSS - From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
February 2, 2009 at 4:52 PM EST

Quote taken from the article “Scarlett, Frankly”

“I've shot in Vancouver and been to the Toronto Film Festival,” Johansson notes. “Most every Canadian I've ever met and worked with has a really wicked sense of humour. They sort of wink at life, and I like that. That's why I like to visit, and as close to home as it is, there's sort of a European sensibility about the place.” – Scarlet Johansson

She’s died her hair brown. News deemed as important it seems, as a potential war between Canada and the United States over “Buy American” policies and their effect on trade between our two nations. But I’m sure we’ll work it out over a game hockey and donut from Tim Horton’s.

Note: I didn’t misspell humour as that’s actually the Canadian spelling of it, despite what your spell checker says.

Out here we appreciate newspapers far beyond the printed word. The paper has multiple uses, especially the sunday edition since it is so big, I don't believe the internet will ever provide that kind of service!

Ebert: Deep in the heart of...Texas...

Serendipity. That's why I read newspapers. Because I always find stuff that I'm interested in by turning from page to page that I wouldn't have found otherwise, stories that I probably never would have seen online. And I am also more likely to read things I disagree with (esp. on the editorial page) in a newspaper than I am online. (I actually have a draft of a post on my own blog on reading newspapers that I never got around to finishing--maybe I will now!)

Thanks for the great post, as always!

I must possess a workmanlike underdeveloped chunk of your brain, because recently I went down that very same, ultimately useless path on HuffPost to find out about IPS, not because of the first-reference problem, but some other mystery in their copy. Though the first-reference problem is vexing. You hear journalists who came from print such as Gwen Ifill on "Washington Week" try to wedge in identification for television reporters she interviews. (That doesn't even help me because I'm so old that I remember when the GAO was the Government Accounting Office, not the Government Accountability Office, and any explanation of GAO that doesn't go into that bit of Newspeak tinkering leaves me unsatisfied.)

Ebert: I like to quote my first Sun-Times editor, Jim Hoge, who told me, "Anyone who buys a paper should have a fair chance of understanding most of what's in it.

I remember when I was a wee laddie (1980s - well, I was wee-ish) and I saw this commercial on the tv for - a bank? hair gel? i'm not sure - basically the plot was this: handsome 80s cliche hunk gets out of bed on a sunday morning in his converted warehouse apartment (Easy Like A Sunday Morning, by the Commadores is playing), his cat is frisky and wants feeding - he wanders down to the street - people wave at him - he's a popular guy that lives alone out of choice.
Cut to him back on his balcony drinking his big cup of coffee, the cat has been fed and he's reading a broadsheet newspaper. Age 11, that was it for me - I want to BE HIM. So cool. And yet, presumably intelligent enough to be reading a grown-up paper. I didn't know anyone that read a big paper (The Times, The Guardian) we were a tabloid house (The Sun - UK version).

My point is - there's something so cool and relaxing and impressive about someone reading a newspaper - you could fall in love with them - but someone stabbing fingers against a keyboard and mousing about - nah. forget it. As much as I'm addicted to the internets, there's something about newspapers that is like coming home. I sit there and feel busy, but relaxed, having time off, but learning something, free to skim, scan and concentrate when needed. Preferably with Easy Like A Sunday Morning playing in the background (Faith No More version now). But I still don't have a cat.

I moved to Germany in October 2000 and with the Florida fiasco shortly thereafter decided to stay for what became eight years. Luckily for me, the Internet allowed me to keep up on news back home with my American news fix coming from the New York Times and Chicago Sun-Times online, with the latter primarily your work, Mr. Ebert (It was you that I first turned to to try and begin to make sense of 9/11), as well as Mr. Roeper and Ms. Mitchell. I was also able to pick up the Saturday edition of the Daily Telegraph on Sunday mornings at the train station and then head to a local cafe to read it with coffee and a croissant (but this is for the blog heading: All by ourselves alone). This in a little town of about 42,000, Coburg, which actually had two full newspapers serving the community. And both of them actually had small sections devoted to the surrounding villages where they were delivered that only the individual village ever saw.

Flashback - I grew up around newspapers in Tulsa as my step-grandfather was the editor of the Tulsa World and his next door neighbor was the editor of the evening paper that I preferred, the Tulsa Tribune, long gone now unfortunately. The best paper though, this is back in the 70s, was the Sunday New York Times which was flown in from New York and would arrive at Philbrook Art Museum at 3:00 in the afternoon. My grandmother would give me the Arts and Leisure section as we walked back to the car and I would stare at the Hirschfeld drawing (having no idea that I was supposed to be looking for the Ninas). I'd then read whatever Walter Kerr had written and Ada Louise Huxtable. I thought this is what the rest of life was going to be like, reading a paper of such quality every Sunday, trying, somewhat successfully to unravel the crossword puzzle and dreaming about making the recipe from Craig Claiborne. And, yes, one hands were a bit black from the ink; I still remember the distinct feel of it, different from today's papers somehow.

Fast forward - It was when I just recently moved to Chicago and decided to subscribe to the daily Tribune that I realized just how far newspapers have actually fallen. To say that the Tribune is a travesty is being a bit polite. It's no newspaper - more of a daily version of US Weekly. The number of actual words printed about the news is, at most, half of what the New York Times prints on the same day. The solution for me was to subscribe to The Christian Science Monitor, small, yes, and not local, but oh the joy at coming home from work and finding it in my mailbox, my evening paper. The Christian Science Monitor had to believe in the news it chose to print because it would take so long to reach us. It chose stories that had a longer shelf life, stories we could trust. And even this is folding - becoming an electronic version that will be mailed to us at our e-mail address of choice. Thank you - NO!

Ebert: That fat Saturday edition of the London Telegraph with coffee and a croissant. Yes. Yes. I love the Telegraph. Also the Independent and the Guardian.

Where is the wisdom we lost in knowledge, where is the knowledge we lost in information, where is the information we lost in the news ... don't remember who said it, was someone smarter than me.

Ebert: And where is the news we lost on the internet?

I too have given up on Huffington Post. Not that the news there was bad, but too much around it was. I don't like the "Buzzworthy" little internet nothings, the celebrity stories, the gossipy stories presented as if hard news. And I really, really didn't like John Cusack, or Alec Baldwin, or Joseph Heller's daughter (really) being given columns for no reason that I could see except that they were famous, and probably friends with Mrs. Huffington. While I don't always agree with the NYTimes standard of "Hey only people who've gone thru this much school, and had this much experience in the business are qualified to give their opinion", I still find I prefer that standard to Huffington Post's. At least I know the writers at the Times are qualified. But maybe John Cusack has some good ideas? I don't know, I didn't get past the third paragraph.

Ebert: They "get" columns because they write them for free.

I read all my news on the internet, but only from newspapers own websites. Huffpost is pretty much just the left wing drudge report. i tried using it once and it seemed like a terrible site.

I find newspapers to be just the opposite of what you say, annoying to read in print. especially with broadsheets, if you want to eat your breakfast while reading them, you run out of table very quickly.

As for newspapers on the internet, the revenue is just not there the way it is in print. They are dying, it seems inevitable now. The problem is that its the only place to get real reporting. You have undoubtedly already seen what TV journalism has done to this country. Even the BBC and some in depth things on CNN (like those Anderson Cooper segments), which i consider to be the closest to print journalism, just do not cut it.

I am a bit curious what you think of this editorial, as a journalist. Personally i cannot think of any other idea to save the newspapers from either closing down or turning into shells of their former selves that dont do any actual reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/opinion/28swensen.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=endowment&st=cse

Ebert: I would certainly donate to a newspaper endowment fund. It's not the print vs. internet media thing, but the reality that someone has to pay for that reporting, and net advertising sure isn't. Net ads are so limited, as opposed to, say, the full-pagers for that photo and computer retailer whose name I forget.

Lovely article. I remember hearing a phrase something like:

"The internet is an ocean of garbage... with the occasional island of truth."

For the life of me I can't remember where I heard it (did you say it?). The tragedy is that I heard it on the internet, and you know what I'm going to do after this?

Probably google it.

Ah the internet, both a blessing and a curse...

(Oh, and your blog is an island)

Don't get me started! I am a bit ADD. It is nothing that a good pile of books and a quiet library can't solve. But, the internet is often my undoing! I HATE getting lost in it for hours and coming back up for air and realizing that I haven't learned anything substantive the whole time.

On a positive note, it is often a visible reminder of how random my thought processes can sometimes be. It has forced me to be much more intentional about not going off on so many rabbit holes in my research.

Ebert: I think the key is to avoid going online as your first waking act.

Don't get me started! I am a bit ADD. It is nothing that a good pile of books and a quiet library can't solve. But, the internet is often my undoing! I HATE getting lost in it for hours and coming back up for air and realizing that I haven't learned anything substantive the whole time.

On a positive note, it is often a visible reminder of how random my thought processes can sometimes be. It has forced me to be much more intentional about not going off on so many rabbit holes in my research.

Some of my favorite memories of high school are reading the paper as I ate breakfast. It was the Fresno Bee more than 15 years ago (man, am I getting old) and I've yet to find another paper I enjoy as much. I went to college in Seattle and never liked the Times or PI and now that I live in South Jersey, I could get the NYT (I don't like any of the SJ or Philly papers) but can't seem to rationalize the cost when the website is free. Besides, my 2 year old daughter swipes everything I try to read while she's awake, even if it's after we put her brother on the bus for school.

But you're right, there is no pleasure like reading a good paper first thing in the morning. I still miss it, even after all these years.

Did you ever find out what CENTCOM meant? Please tell us.

Ebert: United States Central Command.

I am ashamed to admit that six days out of the week I don't read the newspaper. I do, however, make a Sunday morning ritual of reading the Sunday paper. There's a purity to reading the Sunday paper. I start with the headlines, world events, politics, move on into lifestyles, human interest stories, Parade, scan the coupons and then on into comics of course. It's like dinner, I start with the stuff that's good for me (politics, world events) then move on to the desert (the comics).

Yet, I try to keep myself informed all through the week on what it going on in the world (besides movie news, I mean) and I do get my daily news from the internet. My homepage is firmly set to CNN so when I open my browser, the first thing I see are the headlines. I move down each article of "Latest Updates" and read each just to see what is happening in the world.

In the evening I always make sure that I watch at least an hour and a half of television news, local and then national. I prefer ABC's World News Tonight with Charles Gibson.

I know, I know, I should look at the paper every day but I get my news and I'm happy with it.

NOTE: Roger, you are an elegant writer. Would you mind not using the word "god-damned". When I see it in your article its like a rock thrown through a stained-glass window.

Ebert: Point taken. What else works as well when such an emphasis is desired? Damnable? Bloody? Cotton-pickin'?

My problem is that newspapers started to see reduced profit margins (to profit margins more in line with other industries), and in response cut a lot of experienced, talented, but highly-paid staff. Now, I'm often reading poorly researched, written and edited articles.

But I do prefer reading actual paper. The NY Times is still probably the best source, even if I think they largely fail when it comes to discussing economics (though anybody that subscribes to the Austrian economic theory is destined to be disappointed by mass-media outlets).

I wonder, are there underground progressive newspapers? Ones, that we'd want to read, that are simply better than others because they don't feel the need to alter their product for mass appeal? Probably not. Most news is from AP and Reuters anyhow. I think, for now, I'll continue to just scan the NY Times and BBC Web sites.

Roger, may I remind you of the abject failure of your trusted print editors in getting the story on Iraq pre-invasion? they were more interested in little swiss villages in those days too?

I'm starting my day, pleased to see another piece by you, Roger--which made me reach over to unfold our campus paper, The Knox Student (TKS). It's the January 22 edition, which I saved because it covers the campus' experience of the inauguration. "Campus stops for historic moment," the headline reads--with a nice shot of students in tearful bliss. Under the fold are two stories: "TKE admits hazing" on the right (where it should be), and "Student observes riot in Greece"--a student at home during the December break becomes an instant international correspondent. We're a small school, but every week we get 20 pages or so of news, commentary, and information that most of us read cover to cover.

At the turn of the (last) century, two Knox College classmates founded McClure's Magazine, the birthplace of the muckrakers--who, with Ida Tarbell's pointed pen, promptly took on U.S. Steel and Standard Oil; so down here we understand the value of a good, angry read. And while the internet lets us hop-skip-n-jump, there's nothing like clenching an actual piece of paper and growling about the latest hell-in-a-handbasket news. The resulting inkstains are a bonus, the badge of honor for reading on.

I fear that we are approaching the beginning of the end of print media. I cannot imagine my Sundays without a copy of the New York Times to spend hours with. My hometown newspaper in Atlanta has laid off many of the print journalists, the paper now has less news than USA Today, and they are almost exclusively going to online reporting. With digital devices like Amazon's Kindle and Sony's e-book reader, we are starting to see the beginning of the end of hard cover books. Pretty soon everything formerly in print will be easier to access and more plentiful on line.

I realize there are advantages of the Internet for disseminating culture and information that would normally not be available to many people. On the other hand, getting up in the morning by logging on and scrolling down will never serve as a substitute for sitting at the breakfast table with the newspaper or a magazine. And, to put it gently, I don't fancy bringing a laptop into the bathroom with me to check last night's baseball scores....

I don't read newspapers for several reasons. I think the primary reason is that I don't want to pay for news when I can get the same news on the internet for free. Most newspapers, especially local ones, have an online presence. I just go right there and I get the headlines and usually the entire story.

Second, I have a satellite radio that is mainly turned to a news station. When you get direct feeds of what is on CNN, FoxNews, and Bloomberg, I get the up-to-the-minute news that would normally come out the next day.

Third, I find that some of the newspapers out there, especially the New York Times, have an agenda which because of my political views make me question what I am reading. The NYT has had its share of problems the last few years, and it just is not impartial. I would have more respect for the paper if it said in big bold letters "A PROGRESSIVE NEWSPAPER." I don't mind that it is a progressive newspaper, just don't tell me you are not. But I guess the same argument could be made about FoxNews. I will concede that.

Fourth, I am not even a minor public figure in my area, but I have made the news in my current position and I have seen what the ignorance of newsreporters can do to your reputation and that of your associates. I realized very early that newspapers are not necessarily there to educate and inform, but to sell more newspapers (just like HuffPost is there to get more clicks from Roger and others).

Finally, I just don't have the time. I have two little boys to care for in the morning, feed, water, get dressed, comb hair and brush teeth, and then drive to school. No small feat to be sure.

By the way Roger, nice picture of you and your family. Congratulations on the honor!

Too often on the web, I'm under the impression that I'm downloading vast amounts of news into my eager mind, when actually I am playing a sort of crossword puzzle of the news, substituting stories for letters.

I know exactly what you mean. At first I couldn't stand staring at an illuminated screen, then I loved being able to multitask with every paper I can think of. And now, well, I want to lay back like that guy under the bridge. But that would be a risky maneuver with a laptop.

I agree with Mr. Ebert's comments on the Huffington Post, and thought maybe I was losing my mind because the site has become virtually impossible to use due to its slowness. I've clicked on lots of interesting headlines, and found myself at yet another "bouncy" page and not the story I thought I was clicking on, and sometimes clicked accidentally on stuff I didn't want to read because in the time between moving the mouse over the headline and clicking it, the page moved up or down. And how about those news sites where you move your mouse to a certain point, and an ad pops under it and you have to find and click the close button? Clever -- and very frustrating.
I definitely prefer the print New York Times, but I involuntarily participated in a newspaper company's "next step into the future" last year (read: I was canned) and am forced to read it online for free.
What I do with the Times Web site is open each section in its own Internet Explorer window, then open the stories I want in their own tabs. Oh, and I make sure to click on "Single Page" so I can read the stories without having to click again. Then I close the tab when I'm finished.

A few months ago I decided to start reading newspapers again. I live just outside the Atlanta area, and was subscribing to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution as well as the New York Times. Just about one month ago, the AJC decided to stop delivering papers to my county, because there weren't enough subscribers in the area to justify the delivery costs. Alas, the people delivering the AJC were the same people delivering the New York Times, so now I have nothing but the rather limited local city newspaper. I'm the news director of a local radio station, and many friends have assumed that I would be happy about the demise of the newspaper in this area. Not at all. Reading the paper was one of those little things that made my life a bit better each day. Now they're gone. Back to murky waters of the web, I suppose.

Excellent item, Mr. Ebert. My question: Why don't newspapers go to war with Internet "news" sites? Shouldn't there be a column in every newspaper every day with examples of the extreme hinkiness of so much of the vacuous and deceptive garbage that passes for news on these sites, even the more respectable ones, such as HuffPost? In other words, a column somewhat like what you've written here.
.
Of course, newspapers have their own Web sites, but they tend to be a lot less compelling than the Drudges and Huffingtons, precisely because newspapers have standards. Why shouldn't newspapers then, besieged as they are, take those standards and use them like a baseball bat to beat the living hell out of these deceptive and vile online interlopers? One runs across plenty of anonymous (cowardly) yahoos online calling for the downfall of newspapers. It's about time the papers began fighting back.
.
As a former fan of the Tribune, I doubt very much that Colonel McCormick, for all his faults, would've permitted his great flagship to go down without firing a shot. For that matter, there were a lot of combative publishers around the country who knew what it meant to compete rather than capitulate.
.
Oh heck. Since I'm all wound up here, I may as well go the distance: Why don't newspapers collectively go offline altogether with their news (not their classified ads) and offer an exclusive and unique (and therefore quite valuable) print product? Copyright all their original material. Insist that the news services they support--AP, Reuters and the others--copyright their material and take it offline. And then sue the pants off any online site that attempts to use their copy.
.
From what I'm told, newspaper online revenues were flatlining at a very low level even before the recession began. There's no future for real news online; the business model just doesn't work. Didn't know that 5 years ago, but we do know it now. Even Huffington's "$200 million" product doesn't pay its writers a dime. Why should the newspaper industry keep beating its head against the same wall?
.
Ninety percent of newspaper company revenue and profits come from print. Digital is a dead end. If there are any real brains at the top of these companies, little light bulbs would be clicking on above their heads right about now.

Ebert: I tend to agree. What's happened is that papers have invested a lot in online, and their IT employees and managers have a vested interest in protecting their turf. This topic might make an entry.

As a newspaper editor and the wife of a multimedia journalism professor, I have long grappled with the conflict of new media vs. old media and have tried to maintain a delicate balance in gathering information from various sources.
But when I see that you have used my dear friend's sketch of her husband reading the paper to illustrate your point, I am simply delighted to see a perfect example of how old and new media complement one another.
Kudos!

Ebert: I spent some happy time at her site.

Oh so true. I don't know how many unread Economists, Wall Street Journal, and Star-Tribune's I've had over the past year. The addiction of instant internet news during the election has slowed down, so I think I have just been inspired to sit down and read the newspaper for a week to see where it leads me.

Congrats on the DGA honor, sir.

Newspapers printed in my country seem like conduits of opinion for politicians rather than purveyors of important facts, but at least we've learned to read them between the lines.

I still support internet news, but I understand what you mean.

Maybe we just need better editors.

I've had the same frustration with the Huffington Post... spending too much time trying to find the real story. The other week I tried to read about how Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail but their story didn't have a substantive quote. (I've found before that you can't trust the short quotes from their headlines.) I actually had to watch a 2-minute video to hear what he said, and it didn't have the quote in it. I thought they made it up until I saw it later on the Daily Show.

And I can't tell you how often I see an interesting tidbit on yahoo news only to find that not only do I have to watch a video of it... and I have to watch a commercial to get to that video! Frustrating.

All of this reminds me of a Mitch Hedberg joke:

“I mumble a lot off-stage, I'm a mumbler. If I'm walking with a friend and I say something, he won't hear me, he'll say 'What?'. So I'll say it again, but once again he doesn't hear me, so he says 'What?'. But really it's just some insignificant shit that I'm saying, but now I'm yelling, 'That tree is far away.'”

I'm going to go post this link on that Huffington Post General story.

Hallelujah. Thank you Roger for distilling the value of the print medium. Perfect.

Online, I basically read your Rogerebert.com website and the New York Times home page and occasionally go "inside" the Times. Truth be told, there is nothing like a newspaper for convenience. Frankly, I think newspapers should take their highly-detailed websites off the Internet. They can have a website with a Home Page with important headlines, maybe have a photo page, sell classified ads on the site, and let people write letters to the editor on it. But that's about it. Stop giving away the news and features.

As for The Huffington Post, I was cheered by your description of it as slow. I thought it was me, and I've got a very fast broadband connection. It is slow, isn't it? I wasted so much time waiting for the pages to come up, and wasted even more time trying to find old blogs and columns and current stories that I simply stopped going to it. I no longer read the HuffPost website because it became so annoying to surf through. And you know what? I don't miss it.

I never stopped reading newspapers. I currently buy the New York Times and the Buffalo News (my hometown) every day. I used to buy USAToday until recently for two reasons. The price is now $1.00 a day and it isn't worth that. And, I got tired of the errors in the crossword puzzles. Most recently, at the end of January: Clue: Perry's aide. The answer, of course, is Della Street, who was Perry Mason's assistant. USAToday's screwed-up answer: Stella. What?

Once again Roger, you hit the proverbial nail on the head. There is a true comfort level to reading the physical newspaper. The Internet simply doesn't cut it.

Not to draw a line in the sand regarding the Amazon Kindle (such posturing is tiresome), but for me, the Kindle offers the best of both worlds: the easy navigability and ink-free hands when the computer experience is at its best, along with the feeling and flavor of buying and reading that morning's newspaper. Because that's what the Kindle sells you: that day's paper, downloaded into the device in its entirety (well, minus ads and some photos) in about 10 seconds. So there's no slow loading when you click on an article (because it's already in the device), no pop-up ads, no freeze ups. And with its black-ink-on-a-slightly-off-white-background screen appearance, it's even a little boring looking like a regular newspaper, allowing you to concentrate on content rather than zippy graphics. Rather than trying to replace newspapers, I think the Kindle is honestly trying to give them a new lease on life by making their delivery cheaper and more convenient. Who knows, the Kindle might be the first real step to that cool constantly-updating newspaper seen in "Minority Report".

Ebert: The problem with the Kindle is, you can't spread your arms and hide behind it. Fatal for Hitchcock.

I'm wondering which newspapers you've found fit to save over the years. Are you an obsessive collector with stacks of yellowing newsprint stashed in your basement, or do you just save a few copies from historic dates, if you save them at all? I'm assuming you, like everyone else, have copies from this past election day and innauguration, but what other events have you felt worthy of saving for posterity? Do you have any James Joyce-like editions from days that are important to no one else but you? I just found myself curious about this from reading your entry.

Ebert: Above all, the edition of The Daily Illini I edited on the day JFK was assassinated.

Roger, you're not "a dummy". I do web site usability for a living, and the Huffington Post is one of the worst, absolute WORST, sites online for that. (Idealogically, I agree with them, so this isn't about their content). Every time I've gone there I've had the same experience as you--big honking links that go nowhere, a massively confusing page stuffed with too many columns and headlines, with links that don't resemble the places they link to, etc. Just one big headache. I don't understand why that site can't hire just one usability person, or designer, to untangle the mess that they've made.
I read a newspaper every morning (The Washington Post) and then consider what I learn on the web a supplement until the next morning. Same with TV news, if I see any of it.

If I could I would write an ode to the newspaper. Supplying you with the news is the least of its functions. First it serves as an alarm clock as it comes flying in through the window and thumps the door to announce the day. Even as a minimal reader the eagerness to see the fresh newborn creature is enough to overcome the reluctance to renounce the quilt. The fragrance, the neat folds--how annoying if anybody else has touced or opened it before me. At times it becomes a table cloth ,a napkin ,a mat or even a bed sheet and even even a substitute toilet roll. You cant do all that on the internet. Rolled into a cone ,it serves as a waste paper basket within a waste paper basket. In winter on occassions it can serve as a "garment" to keep you warm. You can use it as a notepad to scribble phone numbers and names or even a rough sheet to do mathematical calculations or accounts. Wrapping things. Origami.Paper aeroplanes and boats. Paper bags for groceries. I dont know whether heaven has internet---I find I can live without it----but life without the daily newspaper certainly seems lonesome.

Ebert: That fat Saturday edition of the London Telegraph with coffee and a croissant. Yes. Yes. I love the Telegraph. Also the Independent and the Guardian.

But not The Sunday Times? The mordant glory of AA Gill? The lumpen genius that is Jeremy Clarkson? The epicurean maestro of West London Michael Winner?

Ebert: The Sunday Times, of course. But the Telegraph still allows more eccentricity. Auberon Waugh was one of the greatest satirists of all time. I've practically memorized both of his books of "Diaries."

Congratulations, Roger, on the honors you received for your work as a great film critic of the newspaperman variety. The Directors Guild of America must be taking care of business in the right way to choose you as a lifetime honorary member.

On the subject of news via paper, here in Switzerland, newspapers of the free variety have been proliferating for the last ten years. Ten years ago there was one. It is called "20 Minuten" with regional versions, Zurich, Basel, Bern, etc. Now there are at least four or five new publishers of 'short' newspapers, the number dependent on the size of the train station, where they all are distributed daily. The trains, themselves, are full of them, as you read and recycle by leaving the paper for the seat's next occupant. The seat you pick is often determined by the newspaper you prefer. There are never enough copies of the most popular versions. Bus drivers grab a large pile of them at the train stations for their patrons. Early risers grab a large pile for their colleagues. Because mass transportation is such a large part of the culture here, this method of newspaper distribution has been very successful as it is guaranteed to reach all markets, even to the small, isolated hill or mountain village via bus. At the height of the competition between these 'short' newspapers, the standard and quality were at its lowest, the standard never being very high (news nuggets). Thankfully, the competition has abated. It's either that or I've learned what to avoid.

Congratulations again to you for being honored and to DGA for choosing wisely.

BTW, Absinthe is a long-time favorite at some ski villages and elsewhere. It tastes godawful.

Ebert: The Tribune started the free Red Eye in Chicago in a conscious attempt to destroy its tabloid opposition, the Sun-Times. Now that the Trib is downsizing to tabloid, there is a rich irony.

More confusion. The disappearing story you read on Huff Post was, I think, "Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision" by Gareth Porter. It's now on Common Dreams, but you have to use the search function on the main page. The NYT story, also on International Herald Tribune, is on the same subject but has much less bite.

When I lived in the UK, I used to enjoy reading the big Sunday papers. But I think part of my desire to do so was merely rooted in the fact that they came with weekly TV guides. Nowadays, like many people, I just browse the Google News headlines or watch late night reports on TV. The only paper I ever read is the local one, because it contains information less readily available online.

However, I'd like to start reading newspapers in a traditional sense. I think there's something to be said for the ritual of it -- I'm a creature of habit, and find solace in the little things; I've always felt like I'd be the sort of person who gets up every morning, reads the paper and has a cup of coffee. There's something very appealing, almost sophisticated about the image of a man reading a newspaper. I think, as you've mentioned, the Internet has begun effectively killing this notion. But now that I'm on a campus where they have free copies of various papers in the lobbies, I might start picking them up. (But I'll have to disagree with Mark's comments, above, and make sure to avoid anything featuring Ann Coulter's opinion pieces; I'd favour the Daily Mail over any of her nonsense.)

Ebert: Think of that paper and a cup of coffee as a meditation period. Remember, news that gets on the net instantly does so without the probity of editors and copy editors.

I get depressed these days whenever I pick up a newspaper. It's like staring at someone on his deathbed.

Mr. Ebert, if I'm reading your essay correctly, you missed an interesting article in your first reading of the Times, and you probably wouldn't have read it at all if not for that eye-catching Huffington headline. Give credit where credit is due.

Huffington and its ilk seem to have drawn your fire in two ways at once:
1) They're not paper (and is anything better than paper?), so we can't use our millions-of-years-old object manipulation skills to go from one part to another. Combine that with really incompetent link design (or malice, but "never ascribe...") and you have something that's simply a pain to read.
2) Cheap and easy publication allows bad journalism and flummery to reach your eyes. This is what leads to "IPS is" nonsense and Minitruthian removal of old articles.

Both of these are symptoms of a new medium still finding itself. I don't know much about the newspaper business, but I have the impression that when the industry was new, standards were pretty low. Bad papers die, good ones improve, and eventually they're worth the time to read (and the coins to buy). And just think of the intrinsic potential of online news, once it comes into its own. It can come out as fast as television news, be cheaper than newsprint, allow interactivity and linking, and you don't have to receive the whole paper every day if you're interested in only a section or two (and don't get me started about trees and landfills). It just needs time.

Ebert: And money. News doesn't get covered by itself. There's the rub.

You've perfectly highlighted the only purpose the Huffington Post now serves in my life. It's a slow news day, I go to CNN.com, I go to NyTimes.com, I check out the BBC news page. Minor events reported on, nothing particularly exciting. Time to spice things up. Over to the HuffPo, where every day, every headline is like V-J day or the launch of Sputnik. I don't even read the articles, but for one split second, when I see that 72 point font or whatever size they use, I trick myself into believing that this day is the most momentous occurrence in my entire life. Then I actually read the words, instead of just seeing them. It's fake news, space filler, and it's back to my day.

Reply to: Ebert: Reading an actual newspaper is more orderly ,and faster. It allows one to settle into a favorite chair instead of peering at a screen.

Forgive me for getting slightly off-topic, but "peering" at a screen is so last-decade.

Panasonic has a new projector that's listing at $2499. The AE-3000 or something. Prices are coming down rapidly for projectors, but no one seems to understand what they can do. They project quality images on a screen that ranges from 96" to 133" diagonally.

With a proper screen and a new projector, you should be able to sit back in your recliner at a proper angle, or fluff up some king-sized pillows on your bed, and surf the Internet without having to "assume the position." OK, a shallow pool filled with temperature-controlled salt water might not fit in your living room, so you'll have to sit in a recliner. But the technology is out there. And the prices are coming down.

A typical computer monitor might be 22" diagonally, or 30"... but when you're talking about the Internet experience, any less than 100" is Cave Man Stuff. And using a projector with a motorized screen allows it all to disappear in less than a minute, so the neighbors won't think you're "geeky."

And, yes, the sites that ask you to flip from page to page are getting out of hand. Like the new Indiana Jones movie, all you can do is refuse to buy a ticket.

Ebert: We have big screen projection TV. I like to keep the net in its place.

This is the way I see it: Web sites just throw stuff at the proverbial wall 24/7 until they find something that strikes the proberbial nerve. A newspaper must be more discerning, am I wrong?

So many problems with a malleable medium like the internet, or even broadcast information of a more familiar sort, like radio and TV. You can't be a keeper of the record unless the record in some way becomes unchangeable, at least until the next edition. The written word is king and all else is a sea of fresh crap.

Quote me, if you like.

Also, I'm reminded of the famous reply to criticism that began, "I'm in the smallest room of the house with your review in front of me. Soon it will be behind me." A good trick with a computer monitor. Thank god TV's gone to the flat screen.

@MC: Ebert did say it, in a recent journal entry. I can safely say this because I quoted it on my blog and gave credit where credit is absolutely due. Unfortunately I failed to cite which entry.

Congratulations on the DGA award. Your speech was a thing of beauty and elevation, as is the lovely family photo.

Regarding the topic of newspapers, I appreciate the convenience of online papers for my work as a medical writer. NYT and WSJ are good sources for news tips and also provide a way to scan the horizon.
That said, I like nothing better than having grey fingertips if they're really from a paper and not a cheap paperback. (Eugh. That's the beauty of old books, where ink reacted with paper to bind forever in the shape of palpable letters.)

I too have more time in the upcoming days to get back to real reading. Calloo, callay! I chortle.

The kitchen table, a cup of coffee, the morning papers -- all at 5 AM when the world is quiet. I get three papers, the LA Times which remains a decent paper, our local Pasadena paper for the very local news, and the Wall Street Journal. I don't agree with WSJ's politics but it has wonderful articles on non-political subjects, and it hasn't cut back its pages yet. What a wonderful way to start the day! May the print press long survive!

My favorite newspaper movie. These two talk far faster than the internet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXS-Aucs7Co

I too grew up in Chicago and remember getting the Sun Times in the morning and the Daily News in the afternoon, never the Tribune though because we were democrats!! We also had 2 mail deliveries a day and 1 Sunday mail delivery!But now I live on the east coast and reading the Chicago newspapers on line is a daily ritual for me...even the obits, it keeps me in touch with home. But I still love sitting around with my husband on Sunday mornings with the Boston Globe spread into sections and just picking through and reading whatever section piques my interest.

Ebert: Afternoon papers were like the day's second act. Then the news at 20.

By Mickey on February 3, 2009 8:51 AM

I would have more respect for (The New York Times) if it said in big bold letters "A PROGRESSIVE NEWSPAPER."

Oh, yeah, they sure are progressive there, aren't they! Like, ya know, Judy Miller with her cheerleading for the Iraq debacle based on the propaganda fed to her by the Bush administration, or Elisabeth Bumiller and her puff pieces on our great war leader Georgie. Or maybe you prefer that liberal wackadoo Tom Friedman: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2598.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

I, too, enjoy reading newspapers to catch up on the news (when I have the opportunity, of course, vs. online news). I, however, have the odd habit of always flipping through each section of the paper in reverse. After reading the front page, I turn it over and start from the back, flipping backwards towards the front. I can't even explain why, but I find it comforting. Luckily, I don't take the same approach with books or movies.

Ooh! I know your pain! Sometimes I click on CNN.com while at work and there will be a big red (sometimes yellow) banner at the top saying BREAKING NEWS: and then some mighty interesting snippet like MUPPETS INVADE NORTH KOREA. Well needless to say I'm interested, but there's no link! It's a statement! A freaking teaser statement! Obviously these people know something, they put the banner there. Throw me a bone! Which Muppets? How many? ANYTHING beats staring at a red teaser box...

I think you are onto something in web-news in general. Any social life depraved teenager can blog something, and a popular source of reference, Wikipedia, is editable by just about anyone. The main benefit of the newspaper is it's eventual downfall: Money. They put a lot of time and money into their reporting, so newspapers are going to be, for the most part more reliable. If only for the core information of a story. The web has many shortcomings and flashing boxes, broken links, and site owners caring more about directing you to the advertisements than your destination are just a few.

What movie did you see? I Netflixed 'Beyond The Poseidon Adventure'. Bet yours was better. :)

I grew up in a household where failure to reassemble the paper in the proper order, and with a proper crease, was a punishable offense.

One thing I recall about 9-11 was that it was the first time in my lifetime that I'd seen a special edition of a newspaper. Until that point they had been things that newspaper boys in the movies screamed about on street corners. That day people read about the special edition online and emailed me asking me to pick one up for them, but they had sold out instantly and I could not get more. That's another thing about paper. When big news happens, we need the tactile sensation of the real thing.

One of my favorite bits of Whitman is his description of the morning after Lincoln's assassination. He talks about how his mother made coffee and breakfast, but they couldn't eat, and they both just sat there passing the papers back and forth and sipping coffee.

And how cool was it to see Pete at the pre-inaugural concert?

Ebert: He wrote a lovely letter that was read at the Studs Terkel memorial, ending, of course, with "Take it easy--but take it."

Roger, three things:

1. Congratulations on your DGA honor.

2. I saw the piece that Leonard Maltin did with you and Chaz on ET just now. Very good piece, and I'll admit to my wife and I feeling the sense of "Elevation". Trust me, it is real.

3. My condolences for your friend, Paul Galloway. As a resident of the Tulsa area, I'm curious as to the Winter Home story you hinted at. I realize I may never hear it, but...I'm still curious.

Concerning Tulsa, we are home to two wonderful newspapers, the Tulsa World, and the Oklahoma Eagle, which is an African American newspaper that's been around since 1921, the year of the Greenwood Riots.

Ebert: Let me start like this: Considering the Galloways lived in Chicago, how does Tulsa strike you as the ideal place for a winter home?

I remember when you were president of the US Student Press Association and I was its executive director, every Saturday evening I would head to 30th Street Station in Philly to pick up copies of the Sunday editions of the New York Times, Herald-Tribune (oh, what a wonderful paper!), Philadelphia Inquirer and occasionally when I was lucky the Washington Post.

I would physically edit the papers--tossing all the advertising sections and the other sections I knew I would not read--and then head back to my apartment with enough reading to last much of the evening and most of the following day. As you note, the stories find you, rather than the other way around. I still subscribe to four dailies and read a bunch more on the web from time to time. The problem is finding time enough to read and still have a life. (TV is out for me, sorry!)

Ebert: Dean! How the hell are you! God, student editors ruled the world then. Remember when they published Detroit's only daily during the newspaper strike? I see Greenfield and Danish, but where have the others gone? And yes, the Sunday Herald-Tribune was a treasure. Tom Wolfe and Jimmy Breslin at the top of their form. Rememeber when we had drinks with Walt Kelly?

Roger Roger-

I read the same story. After reading about the conspiracy by General Petraeus' to use retired Pentagon generals to spread lies about President Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq I wondered why I didn't hear anything more about it–not on MSNBC, or online, or in the one newspaper I subscribe to, the Financial Times. I mean it seems to me that such an important story would garner some ink.

I think one of the major reasons that the Internet news sources are crowding out print is that they can pander to readers pre-conceived biases without worrying about the facts. This has been true in print, the tabloid press has long disregarded facts, but they were dismissed as tabloids. Today sites such as Drudge and the Huffington Post can use misleading and sensationalist headlines to link to stories that have been paid for by mainstream media. Thus they get the clicks and ad revenue for nearly no cost.

The Internet is merely a more efficient means of distribution of content. If the mainstream print media is to survive its got to figure out a way to sell its content on a subscription basis to pay for the journalists, editors, and photographers that give its product value.

Ebert: Start with a penny a page.

I almost never read the newspaper any more. Occasionally when I know I'm going to be sitting around waiting for something, I'll pick up the NY Times, especially on Sundays.

But, because of the nature of my work and leisure, I have a computer in front of me during almost all waking hours, and I've found that it's old news in newspapers. I use a couple of internet news aggregators (mahalo.com is the main one) and in one hour a day, I see more news than reading 4 papers, that's for sure.

While I do get some news from the Internet [great for immediacy], there is no substitute for a real newspaper spread out over a dinner table at home or at a restaurant during breakfast. Besides, I'd rather drop egg yolk or maple syrup on the paper than a laptop :-D

Film award was great news, Mr. Ebert, and much deserved.

-30-

Ebert: Have you seen this poetic article about the permanence of writing on the internet?

http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2009/02/04/will_our_words_be_heard/

-30-

It was information overload. It's the desire to have the latest information from 5 minutes from now 10 minutes ago. It's not healthy to be so attached to the computer for news. Most of the time, the best news is the news that has gone through the checks and balances and is written by professional journalists with careful vetting. But alas, the model marches on. As long as we desire 24/7 feeds into our brains for information, the old newspaper model, no matter how serene and well researched, will go the way of the Model T: new technology, but not necessarily better all the way around. It's quite sad. The younger folks who crave this model have no idea the damage they are doing to reporting.

Ebert: That's it: A "feed" instead of information. You know what happens to something after you feed on it.

>>Let me start like this: Considering the Galloways lived in Chicago, how does Tulsa strike you as the ideal place for a winter home?

It's not exactly balmy here during the winter months, I'll admit.

Ebert: There's your answer right there. Paul said he wanted a real winter home. "You want a summer home, go to Florida." There's more to the story, but that's how he came up with the name. The Sun-Times and Tribune are both readying obituaries which will make great reading. This man was loved.

I disagree that the information is any different on the internet than in a newspaper. The only difference is that you can put as much news in a newspaper, it's more difficult to check facts in a newspaper. I can't tell you how many stories that I have read from a newspaper source and said "That doesn't sound right". On the internet, you just google it and get other sources. In a newspaper, even if you have SEVERAL newspapers, you are stuck, because they all get their info from AP or Reuters feeds.

when i was a teenager in northern new jersey, every morning began with the new york daily news. i started with the sports at the back of the paper and stopped when i got to the classifieds because i wasn't smart enough to know there was more to life than the yankees, rangers, and jets.

when i was in college and not good enough to be on the ice hockey team, i covered it for the school paper while also editing the university literary magazine.

when i graduated, i dreamed of working for a newspaper but "settled" for teaching literature and writing. i've edited thousands of poems, short stories, and research papers. i was often bored silly, but i gained inspiration at times because i taught for a while in the same classrooms where one of my idols, bruce springsteen, once sat.

when i lost that teaching job, i was a signature away from editing a magazine in baltimore, but it was too far away from my kids in new jersey.

when i was almost finished with my first novel a couple of years ago, i moved into a new house, took a job that required a 3-hour commute, and again put more time and energy into student writing instead of my own.

when i got the sunday paper this past weekend, i spend more time with the sale ads for home depot and best buy than the front page, and i generally spend more time with cnn and news radio than anything else. i have trouble reading the paper because i grow too annoyed at the misplaced modifiers and lazy proofreading. i look at the subject-verb disagreement and wonder who could have missed it and why they still have a job. our standards are not what they once were, and that goes for me as well as the rest of society.

when i retire from teaching in about five years and move from the suburbs to either the beach or florida, i'm going to start every day with coffee, a bagel, and one national and one local newspaper. then i'll play tennis or golf until lunch. following that, some attention goes to my blog to get my thoughts warmed up. then i'll sit at the pristine writing desk in my sitting room and type for a while.

when i actually get to that retirement, i'll look back and think of the second sentence from the speech that lou gehrig made in yankee stadium on july 4, 1939. "...today i consider myself the luckiest man on the face of this earth."

Ebert: Unlike most people, your life has been a preparation for retirement. Time for yourself.

I love newspapers for the same reason you do: It gives me only what's important. Our school's newspaper has a 2 page section of world and nation news, and if I want to know more, I then consult the Internet. Granted, I still use Internet for all my celebrity gossip (a weakness, to be sure) but I don't like reading the news online, for the most part. Sitting in front of a computer for that long makes the eyes hurt.

I also love Sunday ads. I don't subscribe to any papers but I always go out and buy the Sunday paper to check out the ads. Far easier than paging through millions of websites.

One thing I grow tired of, being in the journalism major and working for the school paper, is how everyone is always telling us how conventional newspapers are dying or dead. We get it. There will always be an audience for the Internet and newspapers, and the newspaper audience is dwindling. Stop telling us about it and let's DO something. But in the end, I guess it is a fact we must accept, but not without a fight.

Ebert: The web has no way to handle big, detailed ads like those for grocery and camera stores and car dealers.

Ebert: That fat Saturday edition of the London Telegraph with coffee and a croissant. Yes. Yes. I love the Telegraph. Also the Independent and the Guardian.

Now I want to get those...and a few other ones. I've always ironically considered the internet a horrible way to get the news, searching and clicking on endless links.

Ebert: I was just now checking out the Independent's site. Good article about Wikipedia.

Sir,
I have been an admirer of your judgement and your writing for many years, I don’t agree with your assessment of the film “Slumdog Millionaire”.
Scenes of poverty and squalour may appear romantic to you Westerners and to the Indian elite, distanced from the masses. You may find this film an "eye-opener" but for us it has nothing new to offer. The music/soundtrack and the technical quality of the film is excellent; but, overall, “Slumdog Millionaire” is unrealistic & overrated because:
1) The director seems to RELISH showing violence. Some of it (like the police-torture) is quite needless. And why was the boy arrested in the first place? On what charge? Was it realistic?
2) How can a boy growing up in slums speak such accented English? Even if one assumes that the language he actually uses to communicate with the game-show host and the police officer is Hindi (granting the director the creative license to use a language better suited for international audiences), there are 2 instances where it is stretched too far: (a) when the boy becomes a ‘guide’ for foreign tourists at the Taj Mahal & (b) when he becomes a substitute-operator at the call-centre.
3) When the boy uses his ‘lifeline’ during the game-show, his friend discovers that she has forgotten her mobile and has to run back for it. This is plain Bollywood masala! Did the director HAVE to make it so melodramatic?
4) How did the boy know who invented the revolver just by watching his brother use it?
How does his friend know about Benjamin Franklin (something which many Americans themselves don’t know!)?
5) “Darshan Do Ghanshyam” is NOT written by Surdas. It is written by Gopal Singh Nepali for the movie Narsi Bhagat (1957). This song is also credited as traditional and originally written by 15th century poet Narsi Mehta, whose life that film is based on.
6) After winning the game-show, the boy sits on the railway platform and nobody recognizes him! Considering the popularity of the show, is that realistic?
7) Two glaring omissions: To get invited to the show one has to answer several GK questions over phone or Internet. Even after making it to the show, a contestant can reach the hot-seat only after qualifying through “fastest finger first”. All this is conveniently forgotten in the film.
8) And of course the greatest flaw in the storyline: programmes like 'Kaun Banega Crorepati' and 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire' are NOT telecast live. As a result the entire structure of the film becomes unrealistic. For a film that boasts of being realistic such a flaw cannot be overlooked.
As Dennis Lim wrote: “It makes a show of being anchored in a real-world social context, then asks to be read as a fantasy.”
I think “Slumdog Millionaire” can hardly be rated as any better or any worse than an average Bollywood masala film & the Academy will lose its credibility if this film gets the Best Picture or Best Director awards. As an influential opinion-maker, you should not allow that to happen.

Didn't you see Control Room, Ebert? You should have known what CENTCOM is. Or were you being facetious?

I think I could probably get around to some amazing things if I could stop wasting so much of my life online. Everything here is small, cheap exchanges.

I had stopped reading newspapers for years until TV Guide stopped publishing a print version in Canada (yikes!) and we started buying the Saturday Toronto Star. In addition to being the heaviest of the four Greater Toronto Area newspapers, it also contains the closest thing we have to a practical, fully-functional television listing magazine that can actually be removed and set upon the coffee table.

Imagine my delight when I discovered that this two kilo pile of newsprint also contained local, national AND international news, plus a brilliant Entertainment section, and one called 'Ideas' which is absolutely required reading for anyone with even a moderately progressive mindset.

Funny how newspapers have all staked out their own little political demographic turf. Here in Canuckistan, the Sun chain is the tabloid of choice for the redneck crowd, the Star is de rigueur for the latte-sipping urban elite, and the National Post has taken over as the New Conservative Voice of Canada - a position previously held by the Old Grey Lady, the Globe & Mail.

My dad - one of those traditional Canadian Masonic Loyalist Monarchist conservatives - used to read the G&M but now reads the Natty Post (founded by the currently incarcerated Lord Black). Which of course has given me a newfound respect for the balanced and pragmatic editorial approach of the Globe.

As for online news, I find it most useful for finding those stories that fall well below the fold in traditional media. Freaky left-wing places like The Tyee out of BC, or foreign rags like Haaretz out of Israel. And then there's real small town local media, which is sadly becoming franchised out of existence.

I just think of those "think tank" analysts whose job is to read forty newspapers a day and then show up as a guest analyst on some news program. How cheerful is a life like that?

By B.Thompson on February 3, 2009 12:43 PM2) Cheap and easy publication allows bad journalism and flummery to reach your eyes.

Ebert: And money. News doesn't get covered by itself. There's the rub.

Oh, I don't know about bad journalism being the exclusive province of the internet. In fact, I'd say much of the "bad journalism" that led us into the Iraq debacle was from the megalithic mainstream media. The horribly incestuous world of media and politics -- with those in the former fawning over those in the latter to maintain their access and thus, their lifestyles -- is a much bigger threat to knowledge and democracy than anything that's developed on the internet, on which, don't forget, many news and opinion sites developed as an explicit response to the horrible practice of the thing they call "journalism" by the "respected" media conglomerates, which are interested in one thing, money.

I used to be an avid newspaper reader years ago. One day I stopped. News made me sad and sick. If I heard any news from a friend, which I want to know more, I dig the internet. Hard work sometimes, but I got used to it.
Now I have newspaper three times a week. Sometimes I really enjoy reading them on Sunday morning, but often they land on the waste by the end of the week.

For me the question more than where to get one's news seems to be how much news do I need ? Apart for information one needs professionally, how much does one need to know about the happenings around ? About events in ones own country and others , present and past ? On the one hand is my fathomless ignorance, on the other the deluge of knowledge----all the libraries in the world right on your desk, and I think of the poem by Jan Takami

As sand scooped in hands
Falls through the emaciated fingers,
So does time with a gritty sound run out of me,
My time --- so short and precious.
.....
I can only hear the ceaseless sound of time slipping away.

“But now, Google and Wikipedia have all but completely made people forget that libraries exist… Just you wait. The same thing will happen with newspapers, magazines, and books altogether.” Posted by Ken Wettington on February 2, 2009 11:10 PM

I went to Manhattan once and made a point of visiting the New York Public Library on 5th Ave where on either side, the noble lions “Patience and Fortitude” reside in front of the entrance. There’s something magical about a truly great library. Even before you go in, you can feel the wealth of knowledge they contain, and once inside, the sight of so many books enough to make you dizzy at the thought of all the stories they hold. Of people and places just waiting to be discovered – all that lies beyond the wanderer’s view of the Sea of Mists. Caspar David Friedrich captures the essence of it, of what I feel whenever I’m inside a library:

http://www.topofart.com/images/artists/Caspar_David_Friedrich/paintings/friedrich016.jpg

I think that’s why the Harry Potter books have done so well. For taping into the very thing so many fear the internet is threatening to kill; the love of where books can take you. And in a world where video games seemingly rule, tens of millions of children couldn’t wait to turn the pages of a book to essentially read about going to school and take lessons in friendship and heroism, cool stuff like that. I myself have the Potter series but it doesn’t stop there. I also have a Quidditch Tower where I keep my Jazz CD’s:

http://www3.telus.net/thiliasspace/Marie/jpegs/quiddich_tower.jpg

It’s an old photo, but it’s basically an IKEA tower I’d painted over with Hogwart’s motifs. The Turret stand is made of balsa wood & canvas and I added a door. Ooo, and in back there’s a secret door for stashing gummy bears. Ahem: “you can pry the joy of childhood from my cold dead hands.”

I reveal this to you for the sake of context. I know I’m a little “different” and that most people don’t have a Quiddich Tower in their apartment. Or display a statue of Batman and “V” For Vendetta on a shelf with B/W foreign films like Jean Cocteau’s “Beauty and the Beast” or toys such as Wall-E and Johnny Fiama from Muppets Tonight. And that my arty interests tend to expose me to things which don’t represent the norm and thus possibly taint my perception of it. And while I can’t speak for everyone, based on my experience, a lot of people frequent the library where I live. And read magazines and newspapers; the latter always sold out whenever I walk past where they’re sold. Maybe I just live in some “exception” to the rule, wherein despite the popularity of the Internet, folks love a good book and there’s no danger of them disappearing.

Just the other day, I was returning a DVD to the library, “Marie Antoinette” by Sofia Coppola, and bumped into a 16 year old girl returning Emily Bronte’s “Wuthering Heights” which I’d ironically been waiting for! “How’d you like it?” I asked. To my GREAT satisfaction she replied:

“I thought it was really good! Much better than Twilight.”
“Oh my God, what a steaming pile that was…”
“Oh it wasn’t THAT bad!” she laughed. “Did you actually read it..?”
“Yup. It’s a Buffy the Vampire Slayer need my Spike-fix, thing” I explained, to which she nodded. “But Twilight was all icing and no cake, you know? There’s nothing underneath the surface of it.”
“Yeah, Twilight was kinda light compared to that,” she replied, pointing to the book now in my hands. “And it made more sense that they couldn’t live without each other ‘cause they were like soul mates and grew up together.”
“And Bella and Edward fell in love because the writer told them to.” I noted dryly.
“Yeah! I still liked it though.”
“Have you heard of Charlotte Bronte? She wrote Jane Eyre and every girl should meet Mr. Rochester at least once before she dies; Mr. tall, dark and not to be trusted.” I grinned. “At least it’s one of my favorites. It just pierces you straight through...” I sighed, dramatically clutching my heart through my t-shirt.

Her eyes lit up at that and with a quick “Ooo, I wonder if it’s in?” she was off to track it down. And thus, did I strike a blow against mediocre and insipid writing and champion one of the classics of English Literature. Point is, and again maybe I live in a bubble, but books are everywhere here and loved. And depending on the subject matter, magazines still sell too. Not the trendy kind, but rather home décor and gardening. And it makes me wonder if it’s more problematic down in the States? So I went sniffing around and seems that while yes, the Canadian Newspaper industry has started to feel the pinch (ad revenues are down) it’s indeed worse for you guys. Which sucks; as I take no pleasure in knowing that. But at least people do read “paper” so to speak. And the Internet hasn’t replaced the joy of a book. Children still love to read them, and surely there’s hope to be found in knowing that.

One may as well echo Mercutio... " a plague on both your houses "

What is VapourSpeech? Please explain.

On an unrelated note, a bit of old news: Siskel & Ebert give Thumbs Up to Wubba Wubba Wubba Wubba Woo Woo Woo!

Ebert: Like vaporware, but referring to speech, and with the British "U" thrown in for fun.

"Wubba Wubba Wubba Wubba Woo Woo Woo!" is a good song!

Ebert: The web has no way to handle big, detailed ads like those for grocery and camera stores and car dealers.

Ah but this is not true! In fact, perhaps the most useful thing about the Internet is that you can go to most any store's website and pull up their hours, phone number, location (and almost invariably a precise little map) AND that week's circular for your local branch, that you can flip through page by page. Sign up for their newsletter and their coupons go directly into your inbox. You can skip the newspaper entirely.

But your post is dead-on. If I'm not careful, I go online to read about some small news story, and 6 hours of my life go down that stupid rabbit-hole. I've taken to restricting myself - "Is this news to ME?" before I even click on a link. Unfortunately your blog takes forever, because after you are finished, your readers are astonishingly interesting and gosh-durned erudite in their varied points of view. I know it's been said before, but there is nothing else online quite like it.

By the way, my vote is for your continuation of the use of "god-damned," because you use that phrase so infrequently that it has the desired impact of conveying absolute frustration. Plus, it offsets the earlier vote against; let you think the biblically inclined are the only ones who care.

Hmm....Lots to unpack.
Ken Wettington on February 2, 2009 11:10 PM

"News papers will still become archaic, just you wait. More and more net news sites will be as direct as what you wished Huffington Post was, simply because that's where net-news folks will flock to."

No way, my friend. Newspapers much more closely resemble radio and television and books (all three of which have had their downfall prematurely proclaimed) than they do buggy whips and musket loaders. As evidence of this, consider the failure of the E-books.

People (like Yours Truly) love their newspapers.

"Ebert: I also always know what Ann Coulter is talking about. But not why."
The "why" is the easiest part of understanding Ann. She is doing what she does to make lots of money. She knows that she can push the right buttons and heap the huge rewards. Honestly, I don't think Ann really believes in what she is writing, and this hurts all of us.

The concern about the place of newspapers in a computerized society has been under discussion for a number of years now. One of the best considerations I read some time ago suggested that newspapers as a whole still have a significant niche to fill - that, while papers were no longer the frontline of news headlines, they COULD provide the solid review and background and insight that a blazing headline does not. I would really like that, knowing that writers were knowledgeable about their topic, that they had the time to research and ask intelligent questions and not simply give the distinct and disturbing impression that they were careening from one quote to another, juxaposing opposing statements and/or parroting what they were told with insufficient background to ask pertinent questions (extrapolation on my part, based on how my own field of expertise is reported upon). And it would be helpful if, without obvious or subtle editorializing, they could give us the facts that we need to develop actual opinions and not knee-jerk visceral responses to information. Not that knee-jerk visceral responses aren't fun from time to time but they are not opinions, they are reactions. And, even if I am going to react, I would prefer it to be based on solid information and a confidence in the knowledge and commitment of the person writing it.

Having just benefited from your review of Malcolm X after seeing the same(without which the experience is incomplete) I have reason to appreciate the incalculable blessings of the net---if only one wouldn't end up getting "hooked" .

[i]"By the way, my vote is for your continuation of the use of "god-damned," because you use that phrase so infrequently that it has the desired impact of conveying absolute frustration. Plus, it offsets the earlier vote against; let you think the biblically inclined are the only ones who care."[/i]

Consider that this is the only swear word covered in the ten commandments.

I am not a person who is easily offended. I choose my battles carefully. That word is one of the very few that strikes negative a chord with me. When I see it written or hear it spoken it strikes me like a sour note. I just tink there are better, more fitting, more creative words to express frustration.

Personally, for a much more comical effect I would have written it like this:
[i]"Perhaps as a strategy to generate more clicks and longer visit times, they make it tricky to get to the @#!&%$ stories themselves"[/i]

Ebert: That would have worked.

This is totally a non sequitur. But, I don't see that much ambiguity in the movie Doubt.
I was hoping for more. I was expecting more after being primed for it by various reviews. Nor do I think I am giving a poor reading of the film by asserting this! In that final confrontation...when the Priest slams down the phone to tell the Principle "to call the priest in his former parish..." that she hasn't gone through the proper channels.... that nuns answers to priests.... When Mr. Vatican II falls back on the hierarchy to save himself it is clear that he has been undone. Streep doubt is of a person who sees the evil in a system that she believes in and depends on. She is ready to step outside of the dictates or her own theology and of proscribed hierarchy. . . In a line that echos Luther and Huck Finn she says Here I stand... even if I be damned. This is more than a confrontation between old and new, Vatican I and Vatican II....

Sometimes certainly is too safe. Other times doubt is too safe. Anyone who has ever worked with children who have been sexually abused knows that is foolish to wait for absolute certainty! The only way these cases are ever discovered is when an adult pays enough attention to take serious small oblique signs from the child. Certainly too many Priests were given the benefit of the doubt.

Ebert: Yes, but what about this priest?

I don't have an opinion on the quality of online news versus that of its physical manifestation, but I do have an opinion on the experience. While running around the Internet following links is an enjoyable way to kill time, it doesn't have the sense of experience that books or newspapers have. The sensation of the weight and texture of the paper is part of it. So is the way the forms of the letters sit on the page—not leaping out the way they do on a backlit screen, but placed with care (if the designer of the newspaper or book is a good typographer) or pleasantly bad (if the designer is not a good typographer; this is the equivalent of a movie so bad it's good). Turning pages is another process in itself. The sound and the feel of the paper as it moves—few kinds of paper are unpleasant to the touch. The closing of the book or newspaper gives a kind of finality and sense of completion that I don't get from shutting down my browser. The Internet is a quicker way to find things, but it doesn't compare with libraries.
But then I'm a bibliophile. I like books for their own sake. That, I suppose, makes me a species that is almost endangered.

did he sexually molest Donald? that is ambiguous. had he done something similar before? yes. I don't think the film leaves that ambiguous. i know it is suppose to be a parable about doubt and certainty and ambiguity. but, it just fails for me on that level.

I think the movie worked very well as a parable about the relationship between truth and power. The priest had power. For this reason, it was all the more easy for him to "wear it lightly." Both the the mother and the principle are able to craft a place of agency for themselves that is connected to the truth. The Principle is an autocrat, but next to the priest she has little power. The Mother has even less power but she know the truth better than any one else. The Principle could have chosen to bring the priest to light in a public scandal. To press the advantages of truth over power in that way.

However, after the conversation with the Mother she realizes that she can't do this. She instead works from an alternative source of power (with the purported call to the Nun.) She does get him to admit former indiscretions in this exchanger. However, the truth cannot stand in the light. This is why I think that the Streep character is laudable. Not because she is certain. But because she understand certainty in the context of the moral doubts and ambiguity that comes from attempting to do what is right in the shadowy places of existence. She is not going to be able to work to come to truth within the structures that she loves so much. There is no right way for Streep to discover whether the priest has done wrong! She does not choose to be a vigilante. No other way is left open to her in the cancerous structure.

It is for this reason that I believe that when the Priest pulls the power card on the Nun... he has been unmasked. Even though, he has doubts about the top down approach of the church. It has become his Sanctuary because he DOES not possess the truth.

This is my second post herein:

Ryan wrote (quoting Roger) - "Ebert: The web has no way to handle big, detailed ads like those for grocery and camera stores and car dealers."

Then Ryan writes: "Ah but this is not true! In fact, perhaps the most useful thing about the Internet is that you can go to most any store's website and pull up their hours, phone number, location (and almost invariably a precise little map) AND that week's circular for your local branch, that you can flip through page by page. Sign up for their newsletter and their coupons go directly into your inbox. You can skip the newspaper entirely."

I have to write that I completely disagree. It would take hours to do what Ryan is suggesting. And that's only if the computer and Internet connection are behaving themselves. And those are truly wasted hours.

Additionally, how would anyone know which stores are advertising their sales? Is the Internet user expected to be clairvoyant? Sit at the computer for hours and hours going to every store website? Not a chance. The Sunday newspaper with its huge amount of advertising inserts is vital and vitally important.

And to reply to some of the comments about trees and paper and all that. You know what, get over it. This green silliness is going way too far. The internal combustion engine and the excessive use of fossil fuels is the enemy of the environment, not newspapers. Besides, all newspapers are printed on recycled newspaper, anyway.

To my friend Ron:

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

To thine own self be true, Ron. I could have said "I'm paper and your glue" or "sticks and stones" and whatnot. But to be called a fool by someone of your ilk is more of a badge of honor.

However, I sincerely feel sorry for you that you cannot admit to or acknowledge certain truths in the world. You know I could point to all of the liberals or progressives on Fox News and say "You see! Fox News is Fair and Balanced" and you know what I would be for saying that? Let me answer that for you so that I can avoid a deftly hurled insult from your direction: Dishonest.

Check out: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63. Then we can have a piece of peach pie and coffee and talk about it.

And do not be deceived that I think being a liberal is a mortal sin. I am for free speech. I defend free speech everyday, be it from whatever sane or deranged person utters it. What I am saying is that I hate dishonesty. I don't hide behind my views, and most certainly you do not, Ron. Why then take this approach of calling me a fool about a something that even the NYT's admit that it is? Can't we debate it reasonably without the insults?

I miss reading the paper. I stopped subscribing to the Chicago Tribune because the marketers wouldn't leave me alone. I had Sunday and Wednesday delivery and they constantly called to upgrade me. I swore that if they called again, I'd cancel outright and one day, the phone rang...

I'm so old, I miss The Chicago Daily News. I grew up reading Royko. I didn't understand much of the politics (I was about 8), but I could tell that he knew how to eviscerate someone with words. We switched to the Trib (sorry) once TCDN folded--I still have the final paper somewhere, with the headline, "So Long, Chicago".

I read the college dailies while I was a student (and did the NYT crosswords in them), but I gave up on the paper a while back. Now that I am a commuter once a week for my second job (not nursing), I find I miss it. I have been picking up a Red Eye (because it's free). One of life's great pleasures is to read a paper while sipping a hot drink in a streetside cafe or in your PJs of a Sunday. I pity the young folk who know no such pleasure. The Red Eye, while it has its limitations, is a good size and thickness for my train ride on Metra, not too bulky or heavy. It feels good to have ink on my fingers again. It's not a real paper, but it'll do for now.

One of the most enjoyable things I do on vacation is pick up the local paper. Nothing will clue you into real life where you are more quickly than reading the local rag. I confess that I enjoy the Police Beats best.

Ebert: Why not read a real newspaper, instead of a throwaway intended by the Tribune specifically to put the Sun-Times out of business?

Is this the 'appeal to tradition' logical fallacy? Surely, when printing presses were invented, there were men who decried the loss of the good old days when people talked face to face instead of sitting with their noses in books and newspapers.

But, I kid the gazettophile. ;)

I'd rather not burn my eyes on a computer screen while reading my news, but newspapers aren't what (my dad says) they used to be (at least, not locally). I don't want to discredit MY local paper, so I won't name names, but good luck finding a decent editorial...in fact, good luck finding an article actually written by someone NOT named "AP". Not that the newspaper's website is much better--but at least when I go online I don't have to peel off that little quarter-page wing advertisement which is always attached to the section's spine. You know, that one that's folded over only about an inch, so it always flutters to the floor when paper is unfolded. God, it's so annoying...

I'm guilty of purchasing a Sunday paper only, so I can cut the coupons.

I'm with Ken Wettington/Feb 2/11:10 PM. The old soldiers want Cavalry; the old sailors want wooden ships. (Thanks, Robert A. Heinlein, wherever you are.) I like newspapers too. But anyone who decries the use of plastic bottles as a delivery system for water ought to have a problem with the use of wood pulp as a delivery system for information.

While you go back to newspapers they are trying to get you to go to their websites. Many papers give a tease and then direct you to their online edition to finish the story. I don’t think this annoying strategy helps subscriptions.

Whenever I have to wait for something like an oil change, I read a book.

Whenever I don't want my reading material to reveal my political leanings (if I have to wait for a business meeting), I stop off and buy a newspaper. Reading the paper helps create the illusion of patience.

A newspaper is a wonderful ice breaker.

Forwarding an email that people share in solitude pales in comparison to the joy of passing the sports section to your buddy.

I share Roger's appreciation for the orderly progression to a newspaper, but one thing continues to baffle me:

Why do some newspapers use letters to label their sections and then they don't bother to put the sections in alphabetical order?

I find it very very serene to drink my coffee and read the Boston Globe in the morning. I read the paper in my comfy recliner and though I do read online news a lot throughout the day, the paper is more easily accessible on the T and it is also very hard to balance the keyboard and monitor on my lap when I go to the bathroom.

Ebert: The problem with the Kindle is, you can't spread your arms and hide behind it. Fatal for Hitchcock.

The Kindle is a decent first step in the field of e-ink, but quality news-browsing will require (eyestrain-free) e-ink devices the size of a placemat, and not much heavier. The mind boggles at how much paper that would save, especially in adverts. Once newspapers embrace such a competent product, they may well find a new swath of subscriptions.

I only wish that Apple would get into the game; they could really get the ball rolling. But Steve Jobs, who is perfectly happy to peddle those mini-boob tube iPods that allow one to watch the entire "Full House" œuvre on the subway, doesn't seem to think that this is a worthy pursuit. “It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is," he said, "the fact is that people don’t read anymore.”

But you and I still are!

As for Hitchcock, well, fedoras have all but disappeared also - but period movies will never go away. What with increasingly cheap digital effects, in fact, I should think the reverse will prove true.

Ebert: There is something about the 1940s that makes the right kind of story seem more desperate.

Steve Jobs is a hero of mine, but I never exactly pictured him curled up with Stendhal. Too bad. One of the belated discoveries I made five years ago, to my surprise, was that Stendhal is terrifically readable, exciting, and funny.

Despite having newspapers around, the stories unfortunately never "found me". Being a member of the earliest generation raised with the internet (the non-capitalized kind), I undoubtedly have different information-gathering skills than generations before me. It doesn't waste my time, use me for financial gain, or bring me frustration, instead it serves me.

I would have never known anything of your great insights, and those of your readers, without it.

"Consider that this is the only swear word covered in the ten commandments."

But not everyone believes in those Biblical commandments, or that they are the word of God handed directly to Mankind; and this is one that is particularly vulnerable to opinion. If one wants to convey pure frustration without turning that frustration into something unintentionally comical, amusing symbols or child-sized euphemisms just won't take the place of one well-placed swear word, as Kathyrn Forbes noted in "Mama's Bank Account".

One of the reasons I made my original comment on the phrase was because I get so frustrated myself with Christians trying to force their values on others, and using the Bible to enforce that argument as if it were, to one and all, an unassailable document that everyone believes in. Speaking of news stories, I am reminded of the Bible-fest that was the inauguration. After all the prayers and sprinklings of Christian rhetoric through the proceedings, the big news story was that Obama acknowledged in literally ONE WORD that there are nonbelievers in this country - and that this scant admission that they existed was terribly upsetting to Christians, who acted as though the mere mention of a fact was a blasphemy.

Ebert: They did? Incredible. I vote with Ryan.

I also love the paper but am bad at throwing it away .. love the stolen paper or left paper on the subway .. or the one you read at the coffee shop/resteraunt (ie the house paper) that you can read quickly.

Really gotten into reading the paper on my Amazon Kindle and being able to have it available at all times .. I know that makes me strange .. but the interweb as Roger Ebert well said is not the same.

"I get so frustrated myself with Christians trying to force their values on others"

This does not describe me at all. The only lifestyle I force is trying to turn my fellow man away from spending ten bucks on bad movies.

My original comment came from the fact that Roger is such an elegant writer that seeing that word was kind of like a rock through a stained-glass window. I probably would not have said that same if he had used any other swear word but that one word, that particular word is like fingernails on a blackboard to me.

For. Unlawful. Carnal. Knowledge.

I can say it, just so long as I don’t say it as an acronym; then it might strike some as offensive and lead them to complain by way of freedom speech that others should curtail theirs so as to be more agreeable. And why so many capitulate from the start in order to avoid the inevitable; either by choice for having the choice made for them.

I believe in freedom of speech in practice not just in theory. And why I dislike that the right to be heard often requires first appeasing the sensibilities of those who care more for “how” you say something, and less for what you meant by it.

Case in point; I quite like the F-word. It can be used in so many creative ways: a noun, verb, adjective, conjunction. It’s a walking bass line; it can go anywhere! It can be earthy and ugly, silly or funny, even sum up a universe of feeling in single verbal exclamation point – like when you stub your toe really hard or miss the bus when you’re late for work. It’s a powerful word, too. Carrying more weight than most for being so dependent upon the listener to intuit its actual meaning via the “context” in which it was used. Which also makes it a challenging one as not everyone has the patience to do that.

True, it can over used and why I don’t, as doing so reveals a limited education or vocabulary on the part of the speaker or worse, gets really tedious for others to hear - like listening to Caroline Kennedy say “you know?” 50 times while answering some question. It’s also true that it costs nothing to pick another word so as to hedge your bets when you definitely don’t wish to give offence and thus put yourself at risk of being reproached by your grandmother. But then, we’re not at my grandmother’s and I’m not easy to offend with words – only their intended meaning can achieve that. And why I don’t care if Roger says god-damned.

I’m offended by bigger things like hypocrisy, racism, misogyny, people who behave badly inside theaters thus ruining the movie for everyone else, etc. But most of all, I’m offended by the need to avoid giving offence to the point where freedom of speech is all but held hostage by it. I’m going to rant a bit now, so be warned…

I loved Showtime’s Dexter. It’s one of the most original, thought-provoking series I’ve ever seen. And back during the writer’s strike, Showtime’s parent company CBS, desperate for something new to put on, grabbed season one and after some heavy editing, added it to their primetime schedule. Despite all the cuts the PTC (Parental Television Council) a conservative group dedicated to eliminating profanity and excessive sex and violence from the airwaves, launched efforts to get it pulled. Reason being? In addition to the profanity and violence, they were troubled by the concept of a protagonist who’s a serial killer, albeit one who only kills other killers, for feeling it portrays him as the hero and because of it people end-up rooting for him. Totally missing the point.

I’ve seen every episode of Dexter; unedited & uncut. Yes, it’s dark. So too, is its humour. Like “American Psycho” by writer/director Mary Harron, Dexter also boldly dares to explore themes that at times are unsettling and disquieting – but in pursuit of provoking the viewer into asking themselves what THEY think, how THEY feel about what they’re watching. It doesn’t want you to be passive and unengaged but rather, to explore the nature of good and evil, of right and wrong and how you measure and define it for yourself. It wants you to think. And for that, I say bravo!

I watched a censored episode on CBS. “Dexter” was a pale shadow of its former self and why I turned the channel. They’d ripped the very guts out of it. I consoled myself at the time with the knowledge that at least Showtime won’t do that, and eagerly anticipated season 3! However having seen it now, can only sigh heavily. I’ll spare you the details. Suffice to say it seemed pretty obvious that in anticipation of showing it on CBS, a decision was made by the suits to have them “tone things down a bit” and domesticate Dexter Morgan. Which all but ruined the series for making it too pedestrian and thus no longer capable of provoking me to think; just watch. Note: one of the producers on the show also wrote the screenplay for “Twilight”. I’m not kidding.

I’m not sure if I’m connecting all my dots, it’s just that I see things as being connected, how this over here, relates to that over there, the ripple and domino effect. No; I’m not saying people should be allowed to swear in here all the time if they want to. The fact you can’t, is partly what elevates this blog above the others. Rather, I feel it’s important to stand up for the innate “messiness” of freedom of speech (while channeling the ghost Hunter S. Thompson) and passionately argue against any attempt to influence how “you” choose to express yourself, Roger. For this is your canvas. This is where you get to make your brushstrokes. Swear if you want to, dude! Or not. I only want for you what I grant to myself when I paint; the right to choose my brush and the colors I use.

Note: don’t misunderstand me, I take no issue with anyone for voicing his or her views! I totally respect the right to. I’m simply expressing my own in return, while encouraging those when asked to modify the surface of theirs – to run like David!

http://www3.telus.net/thiliasspace/Marie/jpegs/davidruns.jpg

David Shannon's title character from "No David!" (1998) An award-winning children’s book; grin.

Ebert: I have a feeling you will enjoy my next entry.

Could you ever imagine that classic movie device of the spinning zoom-in of a newspaper front page with a big headline being replaced by a spinning zoom-in of a PC monitor or a Blackberry with a text message? Some director is bound to try that someday and my guess is it will not have the same effect of urgency!

Over the years I've narrowed my consumption of the news. I have perhaps ten journalists that I follow closely. Not newspapers or websites.
Where I find these writers is secondary, my primary concern is who the author is. For international news, environmental news, middle eastern news I search out Gwynne Dyer. For my local Canadian news I read Chantal Hébert and Rex Murphy. For American news, it's Jim Lehrer, and especially Shields and Brooks. I supplement that general news by reading Brooks's column online (with a side trip to Maureen Dowd for my guilty pleasure). For general observations on the human condition, I enjoy Roger Ebert and others. By the way Roger, I think your column/blog tops the list of my 'most forwarded links'. Your recent article on the Steakn'Shake was a big hit amongst my epicurean friends.
Back to the medium. It is true that newspapers are more enjoyable. In fact, many a time I've come across an article in print that I've already read online. I read it again with a bit of a thrill. It just seems to have more weight and gravitas. Also, it's not mixed up with all that other junk you get online. HuffPo is getting really bad with that. I enjoyed it once, but now there is way too much junk to wade through. Panning for gold may seem romantic, but it's very tiring on the eyes. Just ask anyone trying to find good writing on HuffPo.

Ebert: Could you believe they took a poll to choose the "hottest" freshman congressman?

I could run a poll to determine the hottest Oscar nominees, and it would drive my hit count way up, but, it having been done over my dead body, I wouldn't be able to enjoy the traffic.

I noticed an interesting cultural difference in reading newspapers while commuting between Chicago and New York metropolitan areas. When I lived in "Chicagoland" (great name, eh?), like many others I rode the train (or sometimes bus) downtown to work, and quickly learned the "commuter fold," that polite way of reading a paper like the Wall St Journal: open a section vertically, then fold the whole thing vertically down the middle. This folding style makes it easy to read articles that go over several columns while not inconveniencing the person next to you. It seemed like everyone used it.

When I moved to Connecticut, I regularly take the train into Manhattan, and no one seems to have heard of it (actually, in a broader perspective, the idea of being considerate to a fellow commuter in general seems to have been lost as well, but that's another matter). It's almost amusing to see two people sitting next to each other on the train trying to read the NY Times at the same time, they keep bumping arms with each other. People seem to have no qualms at all about extending one arm to the left and another to the right in front of the person next to them (fortunately, I've never had a person next to me try to do that to me...)

Ebert: When somebody tries that in Chicago, we bring in a no-neck guy from the west side to sit next to them.

When I was a kid I use to sit on the floor of my living room on Sunday afternoons pouring over the pages of The World Book encyclopedia. I just gobbling up information about anything that looked interesting (I still retain much of what I read). Sadly, the grand old World Book has had much of it's business killed by the rise of the internet. They have a website but it just isn't the same.

I don't know if a kid today would have the same experience with the internet that I had with The World Book, just lying there in a prone position pouring over those pages. I am still ravenous about information, about learning new things. I have great resources like answers.com but it's not the same as the purity of having the encyclopedia in your hand.

Ebert: With me kit was the Americana. I still remember the thrill when it arrived in a wooden packing crate.

mazon sells a replica of the first edition of Britannica. Looks grand.

Field Enterprises, former owner of the Sun-Times, owned World Book.

Buster Keaton's General---a minute ago----gentle,pathetic,melodious,spectacular----inevitably framed and completed by an Ebert review. Thanks.

By Mickey on February 4, 2009 4:39 PM

To my friend Ron:

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

To thine own self be true, Ron. I could have said "I'm paper and your (sic) glue" or "sticks and stones" and whatnot. But to be called a fool by someone of your ilk is more of a badge of honor. Where did I call you a fool, Mickey? I simply injected some old words of wisdom of uncertain origin: http://www.quotationspage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150.

However, I sincerely feel sorry for you that you cannot admit to or acknowledge certain truths in the world. You know I could point to all of the liberals Uh, who? or progressives on Fox News and say "You see! Fox News is Fair and Balanced" and you know what I would be for saying that? Let me answer that for you so that I can avoid a deftly hurled insult from your direction: Dishonest. At least you're honest in acknowledging that Fox is neither fair nor balanced.

Check out: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63. Then we can have a piece of peach pie and coffee and talk about it.

And do not be deceived that I think being a liberal I wouldn't really consider myself liberal except socially; my fiscal outlook is more conservative than you would think. Wharton doesn't produce many fiscal liberals. is a mortal sin. I am for free speech. I defend free speech everyday, be it from whatever sane or deranged person utters it. What I am saying is that I hate dishonesty. I don't hide behind my views, and most certainly you do not, Ron. Why then take this approach of calling me a fool about a something that even the NYT's admit that it is? It doesn't matter to me what they say they are; what matters is what they did in the runup to Iraq and the aftermath: "You shall know them by their deeds." Just 'cuz they say it don't make it so, Mickey. Hell, I could say I'm neither arrogant nor condescending in any situation. Can't we debate it reasonably without the insults?

It is an interesting phenomenom in the world of news. Those who have read their daily newspaper as habit continue to do so, as a rule. But this generation of newspaper readers is shrinking and the younger generation seemingly has no interest in any news (other than perhaps The Daily Show, if you call it news). Because of newspaper bias and subjectivity, readership has continued to sink to new lows annually with no end in sight. When I watch Jay Leno do his Jaywalking segments, it saddens me to see the ignorance the pervades our society today. "Vote for the Rock Star" seems to be the mantra of the day. Our new generation of non-news followers is dangerous to us all - because they can still vote. Ignorance is bliss.
I read the Atlanta newspaper (and your reviews in syndication), but do not get much valuable information on the national and international news, as mostof it I have read the day before online. It is more of a living, sports and local news fix for me. So, like so many others, I have a group of favorites that I search through on the Web, like Drudge, CNN, Reuters, NYTimes online. I quickly peruse the sites for flashing news. I have several file folders filled with favorite links to destinations that address my interests, and I am quite satisfied with the information I can get quickly, especially regarding entertainment. With all of the sources out there, I get my daily dose of entertainment news much more thoroughly and quickly than I ever could with the local rag.
And so it goes with other interests. In today's world, if one is to be thorough with their news reading, he must have several sources of information, from different points of view. Thankfully, this is easy to do online.
As we watch the newspapers go the way of the dinosaur, losing many of their traditional revenue streams to the likes of Craigs List, it is both sad and refreshing at the same time that we have all of these new sources of information at our fingertips.
But there is still a need - with regard to the timely local news and local sports, that the internet has not yet met.
But that doesn't matter much to the younger internet generation. Facebook doesn't tell the news.

As the planned-obsolescence quality of acid-processed book paper has had my classics and others crumbling to dust over the years, I'm grateful for Bartleby.com and sites like it. I'm still reading THE ODYSSEY. It's a lot better beyond college.

Above, I joked about the internet as the best source for tinfoil hat news; yes, Cheney is a lizard from outer space; BUT. The Valerie Plame outing scandal showed up on the 'net 3 years before it hit the NY Times; it hasn't yet been mentioned that the law broken specified that Presidential immunity did not apply here, Dubya could have gone directly to jail for it; CIA operatives monitoring nuke-weapon-related activity were outed and murdered. The news that the gov't's been monitoring e-mails and phones without due cause or warrants also showed up years beforehand. Nobody in the tinfoil hat news believed there were any "WMDs" in Iraq, or that Bush was "still deciding" on the attack, or 1000 other lies blithely passed around as official news before the big "surprise."

Obama was reported as Zbigniew Brzezinski's pick for the White House -- and that he's not a natural born U.S. Citizen -- 5 or 6 years before he popped into the big-boy papers like a big new surprise. Commercial media has yet to note such a story, if it's ever going to. Lawsuits from quite credible plaintiffs about the citizenship requirement are all over the tinfoil hat pages, and as with dozens of other items these past years, it's probably nothing to give a Pavlovian "conspiracy theorist" sneer about. Stranger facts have been uncovered, 50 or 100 years too late.

The 'net's been presenting "crazy" news that turns out factual all too often, and is likely what's really undercutting the big boys. You just have to pick through the flyspecks in the pepper (like with anything) and decide what difference it makes and what somebody's trying to sell you.

Been there. An arrogant self-interest in slanting or faking stories reaches even small-town papers. Joseph Pulitzer made his fortune by not printing stories his wealthy advertisers nervously preferred he wouldn't. I can't even believe book reviews any more; they sound like infommercials. That's probably why so many big papers have pulled them.

Steve Jobs is an ignoramus beyond his ones and zeros. Out here in reality, people are reading more than ever. Even kids. They're just not reading crap... unless, of course, they're trying to sort out the news.

The trouble with 'net news is that somebody could pull the plug out on it all at once. That's one reason to keep some printed periodicals going, but not with news services owned by pals and families of politicians.

Spread out on a Sunday morning with coffee and croissant or glimmering from my computer with food-stained keyboard, the news does not put me in a cozy trance. I recommend to you for whom it does that, snap the god-damned hell out of it.

In the days before the home computer became a household fixture, mid sixties, I used to rush out on the weekends and bring home three copies of The Globe and Mail every weekend.

Then my mother, my husband and myself would sit down at the kitchen table and proceed to see who could complete Alan Richardsons cryptic crossword first!

Sometimes it took until the answers were posted the following weekend to finish it but occasionally one of us got bully rights and was able to do it in a couple of hours.

It was a sad day when we opened the papers to find another crossword writer had taken the spot. (Not the same way of thinking at all!)

Kudos to Marie Haws for that wonderful bit about how the "Powers that be" chewed up Dexter and regurgitated it for the masses! I couldn't agree more.

I read two papers a day, plus numerous industry websites(Billboard.com,TVWeek.com, Variety,NAB etc)...The Chicago Tribune and the New York Times are delivered every morning to my driveway...we used to get the Sun Times, but I felt like they were yelling at me all the time...I think the NYT is the best paper I've ever read...sometimes I keep it in my briefcase to read later in the day or days later...

thanks for your intelligent movie reviews...
PK

Ebert: Why not read a real newspaper, instead of a throwaway intended by the Tribune specifically to put the Sun-Times out of business?

Coupla reasons:

1. I didn't know the Red Eye was such an animal. That's not on. I won't pick it up anymore.
2. There is no paper dispenser that I have found at my local Metra station (I'm sure there is one).
3. It's been FREAKING cold outside on that train platform/bus stop and I haven't been of a mind to wander around outside and find a newsstand.
4. The newsstand that used to be right outside the Randolph St station seems to have disappeared. Probably for years now, but I'm just noticing.
5. I don't have a #5, but I'll think of something!
6. I don't really want to carry around a bulky paper when I'm already carrying around shoes so that I don't wear my winter boots all day, lunch box, purse, papers for work, murder mystery for lunchtime reading, water bottle (made of metal) etc.....

Other than that, I agree with you. I will look for a place to buy a paper soon enough (ie when the weather starts to cooperate. I hate to say it, but it'll be the Trib. I have never liked the layout of the Sun Times--it's more ads than articles. Please don't kick me off the blog!)
:)

Ebert: Hollow laugh. It's not more ads than articles now.

Have you noticed the new layout of the Tribune?

Wow. I WORK at U.S. Central Command and would never use "CENTCOM" in a lead.

Ebert: Hollow laugh. It's not more ads than articles now.

True dat.

Have you noticed the new layout of the Tribune?

Ironic, no?

Every Sunday after church my family and I go to our local coffeeshop and read the paper. All four of us sit and read it--I need the entertainment section, opinion/editorial section, travel section and comics pages, as well as a few choice advertisements and a quick look at the USA Today insert. My mom mainly looks at advertisements while my brother's choice is invariably the comics. My dad is a sports page/outdoors sections/front page man. Once in awhile we'll read something out loud to the rest, and this often springboards us into a discussion--the topics are endless. What a nice social thing it is for the family to read the newspaper. Where would we be without our late Sunday morning ritual?

The newspaper itself is a comfort too. I have several favorite columns I never miss reading, and they are always in the same spot. I always know there will be interesting tidbits sprinkled throughout the paper on various subjects I wouldn't usually think about. And the comics are always arranged in a certain way--I know exactly where to find my favorites.

I still rely on the computer (and the TV) for a lot of my information, but only for a part of it. The other part is and always will be reserved for my Sunday newspaper reading.

We in southeast Michigan are to lose home delivery of both the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press: both will only be delivered Sunday, Thursday, and Friday. The other days will be a small edition available at newsstands. They will also send this small edition electronically to subscribers via email. That means people will have to "read" the news at work, as who has time in the morning to sit down at their computer? Who will be able to stop to buy a paper on the way to work? We used to get our Sunday ads on Saturday, and we could plan our shopping trips in advance. I assume these won't come on Friday now. Better not die on a Saturday night, there will be no widespread obituary listing before Thursday. We have always had a good movie section for ads and listings, but those have gone downhill. (We lost one local critic to a buyout and now have reviewers from other cities). Most of this is an outgrowth of our terrible economic conditions and fewer auto and classified ads which means less income for the papers. However, the papers have also become more "Gannett-ized" and many days are really quite small with not much breadth of news.

I would gladly have paid more for home delivery but no one asked me to...the newspapers are just giving up instead of going after the people who are not now subscribing. Once you get used to having a good newspaper in the home, it is hard to go without. The truth is, if you clipped just a few coupons or saw a sale ad, you would have paid for the paper right there. The online flyer ads are often quite hard to read. I feel particularly sad for the loyal senior subscribers who will NOT migrate to the Internet for their news and many of these don't even have cable.

Posted by Bernhard Eigenheer on February 3, 2009 6:20 AM…

“Where is the wisdom we lost in knowledge, where is the knowledge we lost in information, where is the information we lost in the news ... don't remember who said it, was someone smarter than me.” To Roger added: “And where is the news we lost on the internet?”

I love irony. I really do. It’s like I can hear the Gods laughing in the ring of it. For I have found the source of your quote Bernard – and to my sheer DELIGHT can now quote him! For I once deeply envied Roger’s ability to, in a long ago review of a Canadian film called “I’ve heard the Mermaids Singing”….

“Where is all the knowledge we lost with information?” - T. S. Eliot

TA DA! That’s where you heard it Bernard! And I found it indirectly in a post over at the “Television Without Pity Forums” where I’d gone to see just how bad the final episode of ITV’s Demons was. Apparently really bad; there was swearing and everything! Mind you, if you’re going rip-off Joss Whedon’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” best be prepared for some torches and pitchforks if you screw it up.

And while blasting the writers for their steaming pile, someone dropped a quote they attributed to T. S. Eliot. Call me anal, but I like to check stuff like that and when I did, I found that “"Good artists borrow, great artists steal" wasn’t said by T. S. Eliot at all. But rather, a songwriter/author named Nerissa Nields – who in turn got it off Oscar Wilde, who’d said: "Good writers borrow. Great writers steal".

And that’s what I learned today on the INTERNET. Where is all the knowledge? I think a better question might be where’s all the curiosity? I mean, I know I’ve got tons – freakish amounts, but it’s not like I’m hoarding it or anything. Smile.

I recently got a job at a small town newspaper in Nebraska out of college. It is refreshing to hear that people still read the print editions. Nothing is more scary than joining a dying industry.

Gah! I found the newspaper dispenser thingies at my Metra stop. What have they done to the Trib? Ok, all merits of journalism aside for either Chicago daily, I cannot stand the magazine layout for newspapers. I like to fold my paper in thirds. I like to read down columns, not across pages (if you follow me). I now not only will not get the Sun Times, but no Trib, either.

Poo.

I will have to figure out how to do an RSS feed (I think that's what it's called) to stream NPR on my Nano. I feel very out of touch, commuting (which is ironic, given that I'm surrounded by people....).

Ebert: Have you ever considered...books?

I truly can't tell if that is snark or a genuine suggestion. Books, you say? BOOKS? Roger, darling, wonderful Roger--I am a librarian (and still a nurse--long story). I could probably insulate my house in books. I wanted to read the paper on the commute to keep abreast of the news. I hear tell that some folk do such a thing, of a week day and all.... I was probably misinformed. ;)

Wonderful post. I'm using it for discussion in my high-school journalism classes.

(In the interest of complete accuracy, that sketch by Elizabeth Perry at the top of the entry appears to be dated "27 September 2007," and not Sept. 7.)

I was a newspaper junkie for a long time. I was praised as a child for my literacy in reading the local regional paper (LaSalle News-Tribune). I moved to Chicago in the early 70s and read the Sun-Times (my Dad's favorite btw), the Chicago Tribune, the Daily News and Chicago Today (remember that?). Chicago Today and the Daily News disappeared. Rupert Murdoch raped the Sun-Times and I never went back and now the Trib began to morph into USA Today but then evaporated into web references. I subscribe, unsubscribe and resubscribe to the NY Times periodically most recently for the run up to the elections but, because of expense, I just canceled the subscription 2 weeks ago. I loved the NY Times when it really was a "big" city newspaper but they physically shrank it more than a year ago. My hands couldn't adapt. "What was this dinky thing I was holding, certainly not the NY Times!" When I traveled throughout the US I was grateful for living in a city with "real" newspapers. Now it isn't so. I didn't leave newspapers, they left me. In order to try and garner new readers they cut their own throats by alienating the readers they did have.

I miss them but what's a guy to do? Newspapers fostered serendipity in a way that the web can not. You must chase the link to see, you can't just stumble across and decide to read, or not. Now I rely on the web and The Economist but there isn't much but miserable news from any source right now so - you're right - BOOKS!!!!! Books and my iPod.

Thanks for the thoughts.