Jerome Weeks has an interesting piece on the Collapse of Books Coverage in newspapers. As a veteran of the newspaper business -- and a casualty of its short-sightedness -- Weeks is in an excellent position to comment on this topic. So I recommend you read his post.
I've always thought that this is one area where the powers-that-be at the nation's newspapers are really blowing a big opportunity, both to provide a valuable service, and to advance their own cause as well.
Is it such a leap of imagination to think that covering books and writing in newspapers might help attract and cultivate people who are interested in reading -- presumably the same people who might buy a newspaper in the first place?
After all, most people don't read, don't care about reading, and don't give a whit about newspapers. On the other hand, people who go out of their way to read a newspaper might actually have an interest in reading something else as well, and therefore might like to see it covered in the paper.
But I suppose that's too simplistic for the bean counters.*
*No offense to the nice bean counters, who actually love books, like my wife.
Ya think?
Well,David - sad to say - logic no longer rules these days.
Posted by: Elaine Flinn | October 27, 2006 at 07:55 PM
Someone who writes for a living should not use a redundancy like "too simplistic."
Posted by: Anonymous | November 03, 2006 at 08:40 PM
I stand by the sentence... don't you stand by yours?
Posted by: David Montgomery | November 03, 2006 at 08:45 PM