Well said, my friend!

Do you know The Week, a magazine that summarizes, paraphrases, and quotes all the major news from the world's publications weekly? For example, it tells me what the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times say about a major issue, so I don't have to read every newspaper out there to stay informed on opposing perspectives. It even covers real estate, books, and travel!

And speaking of alternative reading spots, it's a great bathroom (and elsewhere) read.

There is a certain romance and art to print publications and the paper method of communicating in general. There seems to be something more personal about it...an intimacy and a permanence that the computer world just can't tap into. Paper seems more "real" to me.

I mean, which would you rather receive: an e-mail or a hand written note? An e-card or a birthday card in the mail?

I'd way rather get an actual newspaper, magazine or newsletter in print than to read it on a flat, annoyingly bright computer screen. Paper and ink smells good...it has texture and personality.

p.s. I've been teased for still using my "old fashioned" paper planner, but when Outlook is down or the Internet goes wonky temporarily, I still know what I need to do and where I need to be!

Carmen and Kirsten:

I couldn't agree more. Carmen, I'll have to check that publication out. I've never even heard of it.

And Kirsten, I still use my "Green Book"---my daily planner. The folks at Ragan have a pool going as to when I'll lose it . . . but so far I've defied the odds and have had it for almost a year.

Of course, there's been 75 close calls. Including the time I left it in Vegas, and just by chance one of the Ragan staffers picked it up.

I thought, was we bring to Vegas, we leave in Vegas . . . including our money and our datebooks.

Steve C.

He's obviously never been to one of Steve's "Integrating Print & Online" seminars. Anyone who's anyone has been there to learn that reading online is 25% slower than reading in print, that 79% of online users scan instead of reading, and that less than a third of the population is even willing to read a publication online. Steve, maybe you should invite him as a special guest?

I wonder how Allan reacted to the article in the latest issue of Communication World about the strengths and weaknesses of communicating via Web, paper or face-to-face. Apparently he either missed or completely disagreed with TJ and Sandar Larkin's comment, "Not everything belongs on the Web."

I, too, enjoy getting information from the Web. But, I also find myself printing long stories and reading them on paper because it is too irritating to scroll and scroll through a web story.

Not only does it not have to be one or the other, I don't think it CAN be one or the other.

I'm a big fan of online media and truly appreciate the power of the Internet whenever I need quick information on a certain topic, but anybody who says they don't need print publications is fooling themselves.

Print is easier on the eyes, you can fold it up and take it anywhere, there are no batteries or cables necessary, it never crashes and when the latest issue of Time comes out, I don't have to upgrade my eyes to version 4.03 in order to read it.

How does Mr. Jenkins read on the bus or the train? With a laptop? If somebody bumps into me and my copy of Bike falls on the dirty bus floor I wouldn't be pleased, but I'd dust it off and go on with my day. Not sure I'd do the same if it happened to my PowerBook.

Steve:

There's a lot of truth to what Allan is saying ... and a lot of truth in your post, too. I think consumption of media is a personal thing, but there's no doubt the trend is headed away from print.

Here are some additional thoughts.

http://wagnercomm.blogspot.com/2005/11/there-will-always-be-place-for-print.html

Steve, who's apparently having a bad day, not only grossly misquoted me, but hadn't the decency to link to my original post.

http://allanjenkins.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/11/will_you_read_y.html

I hope his fans -- of which I am generally one -- will stop by that post before they reach too many judgements.

For me, it all boils down to small. There's nothing like the smell of a new book. My computer doesn't smell at all (yes, I just sniffed it). Plus it's about the human contact print publications still involve: strolling the aisles of a bookstore, stopping by your favorite newsstand, looking through magazines, reading newspapers in an easy chair at Borders...these are all things I love about reading print that are not possible with electronic media.

Allan!

I'm sorry if you think I misquoted you . . . I'll have to go back and read the original post. I know the stuff about Communicaiton World being a benefit only to those who use the Internet was word for word. But if I erred, I am truly sorry. I'm a big fan of your blog.

And as for not linking . . . I don't know how to do that!!!! I am the world's most ass backwards blogger. I don't know what the hell a trackback is, or a ping . . . and I couldn't figure out how to link directly to your blog.

I the past, this blog has had direct links, but that's because I used to send my copy directly to Ragan, and the great and wonderful Roula over there would do it.

Please, everyone, go check out Allan's original post . . . if I got it wrong, I will be the first to apologize.

Steve C.

Hmmm... I checked out the original post that Allan provided and had a little trouble finding the gross misquotes.

In the "battle" between Steve and Allan, I will have to agree with Steve.

The quote is verbatim.

It most clearly states, "In fact, I find myself furious and disgusted every time IABC's Communication World comes through the door, or its monthly e-edition hits my inbox -- since I have written for CW, I know the article appears weeks or months after the blogosphere has thoroughly dissected the issue. Any day of the week, any IABC member can go into the blogosphere and find 50 better articles than CW publishes in a quarter."

Well, I figured I had the quotes right . . . because I cut and pasted them out of Allan's blog! It's hard to screw that up.

But I also know there's a chance I took them out of context, or didn't get his larger point.

Do you know why? Because I read his post very quickly!! In fact, I mostly scanned it!!! Why?

BECAUSE THAT'S HOW I READ ONLINE!!! In fact, that's how many people read online, which again underscores the need for print vehicles in today's world.

Steve C.

Steve, I can't help you with your IT problems. I try to help you with your interpretation problems here, however:

http://allanjenkins.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/11/steve_crescenzo.html

Maybe I'm just an old boomer incapable of changing my ways, but I can't imagine breakfast at my local greasy spoon without a gritty copy of The New York Times in front of me.

Steve, thank you for your much-needed rant against the print critics (does it sometimes feel, by the way. that they protesteth too much)?

Which is not to say, however, that they are entirely wrong.

Even in this world of instant and ever-constant news, my trusty New York Times print edition cannot tell me the score of last night's baseball game in most cities.

On the other hand, the Internet has yet to produce the journalistic equivalent of the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Iran-gate. And when it does break a story, as in the occasional Druge dredging up, it is usually a gossipy leak, a burst of new information or the occasional news story--not solid and comprehensive reporting.

Where do we all think our Internet news comes from? That's right, conventional ink-stained wretches laboring at those wretched newsprint companies are still producing what you see on most synidcated Internet news sites.

And while the Internet can give me real time stock quotes and allow me to communicate with hundreds of people at once--and isn't this the real advantage of the Web-- can anyone really imagine sitting by the fire and reading Pride and Prejudice on their laptop?

As our attention spans continue to decline, the Internet will continue to gain power and influence with its ability to satisfy with short bursts of information instantaneously.

But there will always be a place for the print novel, the lengthy piece on Rocky Mountain geology in The New Yorker and the five-part investigative series on money in politics in The Washington Post.

Besides, what else are you going to read on the can?

Allan. Wow. Great link. Cool stuff. Got a lot of time on your hands?

There's an old expression:

Never mud wrestle with a pig . . . because you'll both get dirty and the pig will like it.

I guess the 2005 version of that would be:

Never fight online with a computer dork, because he knows how to steal the picture from your web site and make vulgar quotes come out of it and other nifty computer tricks.

I choose to take the high road in this little dust-up, for two reasons:

1. I don't know how to steal Allan's picture from HIS web site and do funny things with it, like compare him to a sort of nerdy looking Mick Jagger.

2. I think this is an important discussion that shouldn't be dragged down by such juvenile blogging behavior.

Mark . . . you are so right. I rely on the online world a lot. Especially during baseball season, when I want box scores and news 10 minutes after the game is over.

But you're right . . . for in-depth news, any kind of analysis whatsoever, and solid reporting on complicated topics, I still turn to print. And always will, as long as it's an option.

And Allan, dear, can you at least take that "F" word out of my mouth on your little web page thingy that you set up there? I was raised not to use that word, and would rather not have people think I would actually say it in a (somewhat) professional forum.

Thanks, dude.

Steve C.

How very meta. Does it prove Steve's point about the masturbatory nature of blogs that this blog about blogs is being blogged about - now by Shel and others - in their blogs? Or does it prove Allan's?

Interesting debate, this. CDs made LPs largely irrelevant (if not obsolete), and DVDs are certainly threatening VHS, but by and large THIS is going to completely replace THAT arguments don't hold much truck for me. I like the immediacy of online and the portability of print. Is that so wrong? Unlike LP/CD and DVD/VHS, this is not merely a advancement of technological form, but a different entity altogether. One is not a replacement for the other. At least not a complete one.

I have a long history of arguing against the "Blogs are the FUTURE, man!" crowd. It's just so shortsighted. Combine that with the the pretentious eggheadism that many bloggers (not all, mind you... but many)exhibit (Allan, I like "edgy," but "edgy" and "arrogant" are different things...) and you can just see the limits of the medium.

-Neruda

Has it struck anyone else that Allan's concern regarding Steve's misrepresenting his views highlights one of the problems with blogs? No editor or sanity check to ensure the point you're getting across is the point you wanted to make. Allan knows what he meant to convey and Steve knows how it came across to him.

I realize an editor goes against the nature of blogs but I know I'm surprised when my editor says, "This is how I read your article. Is that what you intended?" Normally, my answer is no and I go back and rework my article.

This debate might have been avoided if a pair of fresh eyes had reviewed Allan's blog and said, "Do you mean to imply print publications are on life support and soon to be disconnected?"

Ay-yi-yi, folks, my brain hurts. Points made, points mis-made, points over-made.

Let's all chill, sit back and enjoy a martini (milk in my case---I've already had my trimesterly sip of the hooch) and get back to volleying interesting ideas in place of spears.

Yeouch, Steve. You touched a nerve, baby. If you ever want to screw around with photographs to help drive home your point, let me know. I got your back. (Although I hope you would not stoop to depths so low.)

Chicago Tribune is laying off people...I guess now we know why.

Thanks, Rebecca:

Can you get me Allan's head shot from his site? And then teach me how to cut and paste it into some porn shots? Preferably involving sadistic bondage and heavy leather.

. . . . just kidding, just kidding.

Hey, can you give me some info on trackbacks and that sort of thing? Do you know anything about that? Or point me to a resource? I guess if I'm going to have a blog, I better learn about this stuff.

The reason I love this blog is that it has always been so EASY to maintain and run. Now I have to go out and learn new stuff or the blogsphere will ostracize me.

Steve C.

Steve-

Perhaps you need to write a blog about how blogs without trackbacks and an author who knows how to link to other blogs is soon to be a thing of the past.

You can make the point that you have "a thing about simplistic blogs. You just can't stand them."

"On the other hand, the Internet has yet to produce the journalistic equivalent of the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Iran-gate. And when it does break a story, as in the occasional Druge dredging up, it is usually a gossipy leak, a burst of new information or the occasional news story--not solid and comprehensive reporting."

Actually, the blogsphere uncovered the Rathergate scandal. Maybe not as big as Pentagon Papers, etc., but bloggers uncovered the fact that CBS did not do their research.

Steve -

Trackbacks aren't something I would expect you to know how to do. Much like you didn't set up this blog, or the ability for people to get it via RSS Feed, your IT peeps did. They would be the people to set something like this up for you on your blog. (Email them a very nice request)

For a basic definition, you can go here:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/its/elab/services/webtools/blogs/faqs/trackbacks/trackbacks/

I could give you more concrete information or how-to if I knew exactly what was "powering" your blog.

Oh, no . . . please don't give it another thought. MY GOD, you're just a wonderful IT person. No . . . scratch that. YOU, Rebecca, are a wonderful PERSON.

I'll look into these trackbacks. I can't have the entire blogosphere calling me names and posting funny Uncle Fester pictures of me.

Steve C.

TFalk:

My point about blogs and journalistic excellence is this: while the various Internet bloggers and news sites occasionally break news, we still rely on traditional media to round out the story, stay with it and see it to its conclusion.

I have yet to see an Internet-based publication or news site grapple with a complex, long-term investigation that was worthy of a Pulitzer prize. Funny, isn't it? We talk endlessly about the death of traditional media, but it's still those old fuddy-duddies with their ancient printing presses that produce the best kick-ass investigations, i.e., Leak-gate, Torture-gate, Bush-the-Moron gate, etc.

So why do we think this is the case? Well, put simply, Internet consumers refuse to pay for content. Well, there are a few exceptions-- the WSJ online, The Economist--but even these barely break even.

With no economic payback, there's no money to pay for Pulitzer-prize winning reporters. I read recently that the New York Times spends $24 million a year just running its newsroom.

So, while its fun to have all of that free information flowing through the web, we must live with the consequences: cheap journalism that relies mostly on loud opinion, pissing matches between bloggers and gossipy web sites, the Internet version of "if it bleeds, it leads."

I have my days.

Are there pictures of you where you DON'T look like Uncle Fester? (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

P.S. Is it wrong that Julie and I are baking cookies with the kids this weekend and my main focus is that I must buy this apron to do so?
http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?order_num=-1&SKU=13249156

Long live print. I am finding I yearn for my print subscriptions because my eyes are so tired of writing, editing and reading online.

Nothing can replace being able to hold the publication in your hand -- flipping back and forth between stories; bookmarking pages; enjoying the wonderful pictures and accompanying graphics, etc.

Yes, online pubs, etc., are becoming more mainstream but there is still plenty of room for print publications!

Mark,
Newspapers most definately have their place, and I certainly don't want to see print die, even though newspaper subscriptions are down throughout the country; but I believe the blogsphere is a great way to round out and add to news and opinion.

To say blogs are cheap journalism relying on loud opinion, gossipy and pissing matches between bloggers is not entirely true. Yes, there are some blogs that are like that, but there are quite a few informative, research based blogs that I enjoy reading everyday. "If it bleeds it leads" is true of TV news and print, not just the Internet.

Loud opinion is not mutually exclusive to the blogsphere. It exists in print and tv as well. Journalists are just as biased and opinionated as bloggers are, only bloggers (I believe) are more upfront with their bias and opinions, whereas journalists may "hide" their bias and opinions by not telling the whole story. Humans are biased and opinionated, and as long as humans write and tell stories, there will be bias.

Most of the blogs I read link quite extensively to articles from other online publications and news sources (NY Times, WSJ, Reuters, AP, etc.), so I am able to read the articles myself instead of relying solely on the blogger for information/news. I like being able to read differing opinions and views on different subjects, and I think that is what makes blogs a part of my daily news/information routine.

TFaulk