Here's why we still need newspapers. Yesterday, I received the news via the Internet. I knew about Farrah Fawcett's death and Michael Jackson's demise (and the rumors of his demise) as soon as the major and minor news outlets broke the story. I got the news alerts. I found the full articles on the Web sites. I received the tweets. I even turned on my actual television set which is a rare feat for the news gatherer in me these days. I listened to the radio coverage (well, actually, to listeners' responses) to the stories all night.
But still...seeing the news and hearing the news and clicking on the news is one thing. Getting this morning's newspapers, and seeing the news on paper, in print, was something else.
It wasn't until I saw this morning's newspapers that I knew, for certain, that Farrah Fawcett had gone to her reward and Michael Jackson had gone to...well, his plastic surgeon in the sky, or whatever it was that he was aiming for (personally, I'm hoping that both Farrah and Michael graced the new-and-improved heavenly "Tonight Show" starring Johnny and Ed with their presence last night, because that would have been an unbeatable lineup, but maybe that would be rushing things just a bit).
Anyway, the news wasn't proven to be news to me until I held it in my hand and saw it in print and turned the pages for myself. Which is why we still need newspapers.
Or, in any case, it's why I still need newspapers. Maybe some media consumers have moved on. Me? Not so much.
Not yet.
I still want my newspapers in the morning, even when the news is as horrible as it was this morning.
And I think -- and trust -- that pitching stories to newspapers will be a part of book promotion campaigns for a long while to come, as long as there are enough people who feel the way that I do.
