Are Books Becoming Obsolete

Todd Leopold of Cnn.Com wrote an article pertaining to two newspapers that have decided to drop their coverage of books. This is a travesty to writers and readers everywhere. Though it is true that much information can be found on the internet, not everyone is an internet user.

Mr. Leopold states,"For all the titles released, for all the Web sites devoted to covering books, my perception is that books don't matter as much in our society as they once did. I could be wrong. Maybe they still DO matter -- and maybe they never did, at least to a mass audience." (http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/blogs/marquee/index.html). I must ask this question, if books never mattered to the masses, why is it that all those sites are devoted to book coverage. In the same Entertainment segment, there was a tribute to Laura Ingalls Wilder. "Embraced from the start by America's teachers, the books have been read by or to generations of elementary-school kids, which has helped to keep the books in continuous print." (http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/04/27/littlehouse.anniversary.ap/index.html). This is all the evidence I need to refute Mr. Leopold's point and say that books indeed do matter to the masses.

In his argument, Mr. Leopold also makes it a point to state that newspapers are a business that continue to suffer the effects of declining circulation. However, most newspapers offer an online version of their daily output. The same point can be made. By modernizing the newspaper itself, the industry has set themselves up for failing circulation rates. This is not an effect that should be taken out on readers and writers.

Though many people do have internet access, there are still plenty of people who don't surf the information superhighway. To reduce coverage of book in traditional mediums in my opinion is damaging not only to authors but to readers everywhere.

Though it's true as technology advances more and more people turn to the internet for their resources, there are times where people can't or don't want to use the internet. If this is the case, people will rely upon traditional sources for information. This includes newspaper coverage.

To cut out newspaper coverage of books is detrimental to the entire community of authors and readers alike. No longer will one be able to open the newspaper and read about books. No Longer will great books get the recognition they deserve. No longer will an author have the ability to target a local audience.

We tell our children that reading is important, but we prove them to them that it's not by reducing coverage of the many wonderful books that are out there. By reducing coverage of books, it seems that we are telling our children that reading is not important. And that is the worst travesty of all.