ST. JOHN'S, N.L. — The article by Russell Wangersky in The Telegram issue of Nov. 23 together with the recent fee increase of the journal prompted me to share my opinion with your viewers on this topic.
There is no doubt that professional or better quality journalism is facing a major battle of survival all over the globe.
This crisis engulfs in it several related items such as writing, reading, the paper book industry and it goes further by touching deeper in our behavioural evolution as homo sapiens.
It is said that in the history of civilization, the two revolutions which forged the pillars of our culture are two in number. The first one is the creation of the alphabet by my Phoenician ancestors and the second is the invention of printing by Gutenberg.
At present, we are witnessing a third cultural revolution of a digital nature which has brought tremendous changes to our modes of communications at all levels. In spite of its miraculous achievements, this new revolution is not without danger. Some of the “negative” points that the third revolution has brought can be briefly summarized as follows: firstly, newspapers are facing extinction since most people get their information from their numerous electronic gadgets. Secondly, because of the lack of human sciences teaching in our schools promoting books and literature, the young generation have lost their desire to read and don’t want to be seen with a book or newspaper in their hand for fear to be stamped as the “has been” generation. It is predicted that the paper book industry will disappear in 30 years.
Thirdly, all languages — particularly the so called “globish” English — have been impoverished by this revolution. Similar changes are occurring within the art of writing.
I am for the digital revolution but we have to be vigilant and measure its repercussion on our brain, our culture, languages, reading, books and writing. The impact of this revolution is, of course, different from place to place and depends on economic and cultural status and age.
As far as “bailout” policy (for print media), I can share without hesitation the view raised by Wangersky that this is not a solution to revive the ailing industry.
I can relate a personal experience to reinforce the failure of this proposed government policy. My father owned and edited a daily newspaper for at least 40 years in Lebanon and had to close in the 1990s because of financial reasons. In the past year at least 14 Lebanese daily newspapers and few magazines had to close also. Needless to say that all were well subsidized by many factions: government, political parties, family, foreign countries, terrorist groups etc.
To my mind, the problem is simple: we need professional journalism to be informative so we can read more than the headlines. We need it so we can be protected from misinformation, fake news and lies. We need it so we can remain human and avoid the danger of slipping into “robotic mode” by our digital tsunami. Innovations and audience support is a start.
I am afraid the problem of vanishing journalism is a complex one and is difficult to solve.
Some innovative remedies such as (global topics written by specialists in their field, more involvement by readers etc.) may help in the short run but the future appears foggy.
Falah B. Maroun
St. John’s
Related story:
RUSSELL WANGERSKY: Journalism needs audience support, not a bailout
