Disqus - Latest Comments for Bibliophylax

Re: dear hissyfit fussypants

Bibliophylax — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:45:28 -0000

Bloody forward-thinking careful contrarian bastards! Why didn't we think of that?

Re: dear hissyfit fussypants

Bibliophylax — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 05:48:50 -0000

To put it another way: some people haven't had to lower their standard of living recently. What were they doing right? What can we learn from them? (I'm not talking about billionaire bankers.)

Re: podcast #8: the end? of print, part 2

Bibliophylax — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:59:01 -0000

'Libraries are dying' - thanks for not actually saying it! Here in Britain, public libraries *are* dying, I worry, but as a casualty of a long political battle between central and local government, not because the internet's killing them. (I'd hesitate to apply this argument in the U.S. as I don't have a good enough understanding of how city/county funding works.)

As you say, libraries have always been in flux; what I think that means is that libraries have been used differently over time. Newspapers got so used to being the only game in town that most tried paid/restricted content models before trying to embrace the web. (As the brilliant Python example seems to illustrate, you need to accept looser control to profit in the looser-controlled online environment.) Similarly, for a really long time there's been a mass market for fiction and popular non-fiction, despite each individual book usually costing more than a meal. One of public libraries' key roles for *decades* has been meeting a gap here.

Clearly the internet brings valid alternatives for library patrons, like the junior high kids doing their research. I reckon mass-market books will go the way of mass-market CDs, and library use will diminish accordingly. But there are still people who prefer buying CDs; hell, there are people who prefer buying actual records. (Vinyl record sales have gone *up* in Britain in the last few years.) So there will still be readers who choose libraries, and those for whom libraries are the only option.

Me, I'm quite excited by the Kindle. Like I was excited by the Diamond Rio a decade ago. But I'm not buying one until it's very, very good. Like you, my criteria include being one with the iPhone. I waited years for my iPhone, to stop having to carry multiple devices around, and I'm still slightly excited that it exists. (Clearly I'm excitable.)

I don't have many links to share, but John Siracusa's musings of last week are relevant, which I got from @pnh, who's been tweeting only today on ebooks. Incidentally, there's a handful of public libraries in Britain that rent out ebooks. I don't know how well it works. (The more income you make from rentals, the more the council cuts your books budget, so for most librarians there isn't an incentive to try it.)

PS: I'm honored to be the local Ned! Not something I'd admit aloud in Scotland...

Re: podcast #8: the end? of print, part 1

Bibliophylax — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:47:48 -0000

And having griped about copyediting, I write 'TImes' instead of 'Times'. Could have predicted that. *sigh*

Re: podcast #8: the end? of print, part 1

Bibliophylax — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:46:51 -0000

Wow, one of my very favorite topics (and is that an inadvertent Godspeed You! Black Emperor reference in the title?). I guess I'm interested as a librarian, although I suspect my interest in things like this is what pushed me into librarianship.

I think 'the end of newspapers' is very different to 'the end of print' (are you going to look at books in part 2, maybe?). Probably it is the end for crappier newspapers, but that's what happens when you throw huge (technological) change at a staid industry, right? Like Matt says, some newspapers are just bad.

As you say, huge technological change also affects some people disproportionately, like your library regulars. Where possible we need to get internet to people who don't have it at home yet, help them with Ubuntu, whatever... but public libraries also have a duty, I think, to subscribe to print where available, and perhaps innovative things too. (Example: 'my paper' auto-generates short PDFs of its output, updated hourly, which I'd print out occasionally at the library when all our copies of that day's paper were already in use.)

Definitely the advertising revenue problem it's what's driving change in the newspaper industry. AdSense (et al.) is still somewhat immature; your point about print ads being more 'aligned' to their market is fair, but isn't this just very lazy targeting of ads? AdSense is far more ambitious at targeting (and still gets it wrong, badly, often), but isn't it the same basic principle at work?

The authority problem, too, affects both print and digital. Yes, there's a lot of dross online, but I'm convinced copyediting has got worse in print simultaneously. (I can't recall picking up a book published last year that didn't have at least one typo. Admittedly that's a high standard to hit!) And venerable, trustworthy newspapers use that status to get away with lower standards. Did Jayson Blair cause a scandal because he was the one bad apple, or because he was the one bad apple to get caught? Everyone knows Fox News is right-wing and makes assumptions about their editorial stance accordingly, but the TImes of London is owned by the same guy with the same opinions, and gets to play the 'impartial newspaper of record' card, just because it's the Times.

Who writes the news? The wires have a big part to play now, and on that topic, perhaps someone should keep an eye on the Associated Press?

I shall shut up now! :) Except to note that Jeff Jarvis is often good on this topic, particularly when writing for the Guardian, whose media coverage is often excellent.