[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

New Yorker Article



From: Daniel Sokolow@MCGRAW-HILL on 07/19/2000 04:59 PM


To:   archives@listserv.muohio.edu
cc:
Subject:  New Yorker Article

It looks like no one else has mentioned this, but I just finished a rather long
article in the July 24 New Yorker about an author's attempt to save actual
copies of old newspapers that are being tossed out (it's not available online
that I could see, or I'd add the URL).  There are several interesting assertions
in the article, including one that newspapers, bound and stored properly, will
not degrade to the degree commonly accepted in the library world.

I've seen for myself how clippings deteriorate quickly - most of us have had
that experience where you open the folder and flakes start to fall out;  my
assumption has always been that what holds true for clippings would hold for the
full volumes, no matter what you do to them.  I guess I'm a little surprised to
see that challenged, and wondered what others thought about it.

Some of his other assertions are understandable - there's a comparative set of
pictures measuring the microfilm against the original, and the original is much
better than the MF.  He also points out that the MF done on many newspapers was
pretty bad, and people went ahead and tossed their originals without making sure
the MF was OK, or that they had captured all of the issues.

While I agree with his premise that everything should be saved (assuming it's in
reasonable shape), I think he's kind of flippant about the way libraries go
about saving space.  He seems to feel that it's very easy to go ahead and
build/rent/buy more space, but most of the libraries I know of are trying to
squeeze a lot more than newspaper into some small accomodations.  Most of us are
trying to store book, magazine, newspaper, microform, archives, and electronic
materials in the space we're alloted, which is usually too small to begin with.

The only other comment I have is that he seemed somewhat dilletantish - he's
found his crusade and can't understand why the rest of us aren't as horrified
(and motivated) as he is.  He talks about the aesthetic pleasure of newspaper
vs. microfilm, and while I agree that reading MF can make you dizzy, most of us
have to do our jobs without the luxury of aesthetics.  I'm impressed by his
dedication, but I kinda think he's made more of it than perhaps necessary.

DS


Daniel Sokolow
Corporate Archivist
The McGraw-Hill Companies
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
daniel_sokolow@mcgraw-hill.com

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>