This book publicist wants her newspapers!

Rumors of newspapers' death have been greatly exaggerated. Daniel Lyons penned a Newsweek column, "Techtonic Shifts," in which he gloats about the demise of newspapers. Lyons would like to see newspapers die quickly so that we can all get our information online, and he boasts that he's already cancelled two of his newspaper subscriptions.

Well, Lyons may be right about one thing. Newspapers do appear to be on a downward spiral. More of us seem to be catching breaking news through the broadcast or online media, and an increasing number of people are using handheld devices to carry around with them all the information they'll need throughout the day. The role of newspapers is changing, and it would be impossible to deny that.

But a changing role doesn't necessarily mean death. The emergence of television didn't mean the death of radio. The coming of television didn't mean the death of film. Media find different niches as new media emerge, but that doesn't mean they become irrelevant or inconsequential. It just means their roles change, and we rely on them for different reasons.

I'm a huge fan of slowly reading the Sunday newspapers over a cup of coffee and breakfast. And, when I say "Sunday newspapers," I do mean the paper goods. I want to turn the physical pages, and I want to pull out the actual sections, and I want to clip actual articles. I've incorporated Sunday newspaper-reading into my Sunday ritual, and I would be bereft without that ritual. Sorry, but hauling my breakfast in front of a computer monitor, or laying my food out beside a hand-held gadget, just won't fill that void. This book publicist wants her newspapers!

I'll get some type of e-reader, eventually, and I do look forward to reading certain types of information on this gadget. But I don't think my e-reader, whatever type it turns out to be, will threaten my newspaper subscriptions. The price of my newspaper subscriptions might threaten my newspaper subscriptions -- that's a whole separate issue -- but, as long as newspaper subscriptions are affordable, I can justify them. And want them. And expect to continue them...and, certainly, do not expect to see the opportunity to enjoy them die just because pundits such as Lyons say they must.

Stephen King waves his Amazon Kindle 2!

For the past couple of weeks, I've been following the travails of the Boston Globe. Will it survive? Will the New York Times Co. close its doors? (It looks as though it will survive for the time being. According to the Boston Globe's web site, the last of the Boston Globe's unions has finally reached an agreement with the New York Times Co., and all that's left is for the union's membership to ratify the agreement.)

Anyway, while reading every scrap of information I could about the Boston Globe's troubles and those of other newspapers across the country, I stumbled across a Time magazine article called "Will Amazon's Kindle Rescue Newspapers?"

The article talks about a Kindle with a larger screen that's supposed to serve up newspapers (and textbooks) more easily for readers and postulates that this, finally, could be the answer for those of us who -- what? Wanted our broadsheets but didn't enjoy refolding them when we were finished with them? Or didn't want to deal with the overseas-based home delivery staff when subscription issues went awry? Or didn't want to deal with vending machines to buy a copy? Well, I'm sure the larger-screen Kindle will rescue the concept of reading newspapers for some segment of the reading population (I'll get back to you as soon as I figure out which segment of the reading population that is, exactly).

But what really jumped out at me about that Time magazine article was the picture of Stephen King holding a pink Kindle aloft with the biggest grin on his face that I've seen outside a candy shop or toy store. King, who has published a book directly to a Kindle, is enjoying the technology. If you have any doubt about his motive in working directly with Amazon -- if you suspect that he wanted to stick a finger into the eye of mainstream publishers just because he could -- then one look at that photo will tell you differently. King loves the Kindle. He loves being a part of the publishing revolution. He'd love being a part of anything that involves books, because Stephen King loves books.

King isn't holding a copy of The Stand in his fist and saying, "I wrote this great book. I am great. My books are great, and they're not changing. Let's stay where we are and talk about how great everything is" -- as the rest of the civilized world explores new publishing possibilities. King is at the forefront of the publishing revolution, and he doesn't have to be there. He wants to be there, and I respect him for it. And, yes, I love him for it, because I feel as though he's holding my hand through what could be a challenging and frightening ride to an unknown plane of publishing existence.

What could feel threatening to a book publicist (and to a news junkie) feels a lot less threatening, somehow, when I see Stephen King's gleeful expression and can feel his enthusiasm, and his eagerness, for what lies ahead jumping off the page. I can feel King's delight, and I can -- yes, I can -- share it.

I'll have the Boston Globe to read tomorrow, and I'll have hard copies of books to read next week. And the month after that? Or the following year? Who knows? Maybe I'll have a Kindle 2. Maybe I'll have an iPhone with that Kindle application installed on it. Or maybe I'll have a Sony eReader or that thing Barnes and Noble seems to be working or, or maybe I'll have an ebook (and enewspaper) reader that I haven't even heard of yet.

As long as I have reading materials, I'll be good. I can read them, and I can promote them ... whatever they are.

Maybe Rupert is right, but....

Rupert Murdoch has just declared that newspapers are alive and well, and rumors of their death have been greatly exaggerated. That, according to an Associated Press article that describes Murdoch as a "global media magnate."

Presumably, Murdoch has interests in other media outlets besides newspapers, so he can afford to be objective. The Associated Press, too, sells its stories to media outlets beyond newspapers, so perhaps Rupert is right. Perhaps book publicists and others who are conducting book promotion campaigns can pitch away to newspapers, as always, and pretend that these are the good old days when newspapers mattered, and when the Christian Science Monitor didn't even have its own Web site, and when the Los Angeles Times and other major dailies hadn't even thought about cutting down on the number of book reviews they published.

Hey, this book publicist had some good newspaper-related luck recently. For one pitch, last week, I was able to report back to a client that the New York Times, the New York Daily News, the New York Metro, and the Chicago Tribune were going to cover the story. (Actually, it wasn't only a question of reporting that the newspapers were covering the story. Three of those four publications requested an interview with the author.) I'm a believer. Newspapers are alive and well, and they're relevant. So...I agree with Rupert, and I'm delighted to see that the Associated Press is spreading the word that, for the foreseeable future, traditional newspapers matter and can still do a book promotion campaign a world of good.

In fact, newspaper publicity can even give book promotion campaigns a greater boost than before. Now that just about every newspaper has an online presence, most newspaper stories (and, by extension, the experts featured in those stories) receive online visibility. So a news story automatically becomes part of an online book promotion campaign. No author would turn down the opportunity to appear in the New York Times -- particularly, when the New York Times will get you some attention on its site as well as in print and bring extra readers to you (and, hopefully, to your book).

The one hitch in my faith in Rupert Murdoch's optimism (and the Associated Press's gleeful reporting of the same) is an email that I received this morning from the Chicago Tribune. "Want more jumble?" the ad's caption wants to know. Apparently, Chicago Tribune's readers (I assume that I'm considered a Trib "reader" because I regularly pitch stories to them) can receive 10 percent off the retail value of various puzzle-related products (a couple of board games and a calendar, if I'm reading the ad correctly).

Okay, then. The Chicago Tribune is selling some stuff this holiday season to raise some cash. I find that a little bit scary. But, as I said, okay. Just because the Chicago Tribune is offering 10 percent off their toys doesn't necessarily mean the publication is facing rough economic times. It could mean...well, it could also mean that the editors of the Trib...um...like the Jumble and wanted to share it with their readers. Yeah. That must be it.

Oh, well. I'm still delighted that my client is getting a pop in the Chicago Tribune for her book, and I'm thrilled that the owner of many newspapers around the world have validated newspapers as worthy media outlets -- at least, in the short term.

But...today, the Chicago Tribune is selling board games. Tomorrow? Well, let me just say this. If, tomorrow, I should happen to find an unsolicited email from the New York Times, I will be truly cautious about clicking on it. Sometimes, ignorance really is bliss.