Not sure this is the right forum for this - please move if... etc
From a recent column in the Guardian:
"With new [think] tanks established almost daily, each one creating thousands of thoughts and papers, debates and alternative manifestos, each of which must be printed and circulated before it can be shelved, something has got to be done. Rubbish disposal experts estimate that getting rid of the IPPR's thought mountain, alone, already accounts for a landfill site the size of Croydon."
(from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4463567,00.html)
How true, and how ironic that this should be pointed out by one of the hundreds of columnists whose opinions are printed, duplicated, circulated and binned on a daily basis.
Got me to thinking (again) about the energy, money and resources that go into producing papers and how much we really need the extra bits. How many landfill sites do Catherine Bennett's musings take up, I wonder? (And before you mention it, even recycling takes up energy and resources which could be saved if the darn things weren't printed in the first place). How much even gets read?
It won't provide a statistically useful answer, obviously, but it'll make me feel like I'm doing something vaguely positive (and satisfy my curiousity) if I could get you lot to answer the the following questions. I've kicked off with my own answers; feel free to talk about vague impressions, to use generalisations and make unfair accusations like I have:
1. Which sections of the newspapers do you read/look at? To what extent do you engage with them/take them seriously?
I read the news, editorials (occassionally), art/culture bits, columnists and reviews. I flick through the lifestyle bits. I forget most of it - specific facts, that is - an hour or two after having read it, but am left with a sort of newspapery aftertaste that can last up to two days. Articles that inspire or enrage will loop around in my head for up to a week afterwards, generating all manner of internal debate and bickering.
2. Which bits of the multi-part papers do you throw away without even opening them?
Anything relating to money, careers, business, travel or property. In terms of bulk it must be around 50 - 80% of the weekend paper.
3. When you've finished with it, do you recycle it or just shove it in the bin with the household waste?
The whole thing goes in the council-provided recycling bin.
4. Of the bits you read, are there any sections (apart from the news) that you'd miss if they were never to be printed again?
The weekly listings.
Would you still buy the paper if those sections went?
Yes.
5. Of the whole paper, are there any bits (sections or
regular elements) which are guaranteed to piss you off?
The 'lifestyle' bits - clothes, food, interiors, design etc - affect me in spectacular ways. I only have to flick through them to find my hands shaking with rage and my head swelling with blood. Every weekend I shout "Why do I do this to myself? Never again!" but I can't stop myself. I'm like a Victorian prude simultaneously swearing at and sweating over porn. There are a million reasons for this, but I think chief among them is the fact that the paper has a specific target audience in mind - young, sophisticated, affluent, aspirational, urban professionals - and I'm not in it. Oh, and the fact that 'style' has infected every part of the paper.
Columnists/Opinion pieces - people being paid to roll eyes, raise eyebrows and tut!
The majority of reviews/crits. I don't think this is the just about personnal taste. There's something about the whole culture of reviewing that annoys me. I can't put my finger on it at the moment. Anyhow, the Guardian's music and TV reviewers are extra special bastards, with their flippant, sarcy, smart-arse friend on the sofa schtick. They give the impression that they're slumming it till something better comes along or the comedy career takes off (see also the NME). Charlie Brooker gets away with it on the occasions he displays genuine rage/despair. But you've got to ask yourself why anyone should waste money and resources reviewing the bloody telly at all.
6. Miscellaneous: any other specific aspects of the print media that you love or loathe (design, layout, size etc?)
A common complaint - photos of columnists. Even worse - snappy biogs of minor contributors ("Jish Pharmer was 19 yrs old when he dropped out of St Martins to set up a design studio in a Tibetan monastary..."). Not only irritating but completely pointless, as no one will care or remember 5 minutes from now who the f**k Neb Fiskeboll is.
7. Do you think the internet would be a suitable and successful alternative venue for all the non-news stuff you have to lug back from the newsagent every weekend? Will amateur critics replace the paid professionals? (cf the "Records You Shouldn't Have" thread in the Music forum...) |
