For centuries, people have looked to newspapers in order to learn about current events. Over the last few years, this classic print medium has been moving into an online forum. Sven Birkerts, writer of The Gutenberg Elegies strongly disagrees with the migration of newspapers from print to the internet. Contrary to Birkert’s belief that electronic mediums are a distraction from the wired world, The New York Times online edition presents a compilation of resources that brings its readers closer to the world at large in a way that expands upon the limitations of the print version. Numerous arguments could be made to refute this assertion, but ultimately, however, the online version of The New York Times positively expands the knowledge of every person in the pursuit of acquiring and developing a better comprehension of current events.
The online edition presents countless benefits not offered by the print publication. Authors herald articles electronically and at an exceedingly fast rate in order to keep readers within inches of events taking place throughout the world. Although The New York Times website is adjunct to the print application, its convenance far outweighs any subservient assets of the other version. For example, there is no waiting if one has access to a computer. There is no need to wait for the newspaper to come in the morning. Articles can be seen and read whenever it is best for the reader. In addition, the online edition includes far more articles because it is not limited to a few pages of print. Instead, articles are constantly being updated on the website and readers have the ability to read numerous articles about the same topic in order to gain a more extensive knowledge about every subject. By logging on to the website, the archived articles can provide a reader with background information on a conflict or event which would allow them to learn, not only what is happening currently, but also the reasons for why it started. This is not possible with the daily print edition, because only the articles for that day are published leaving readers questioning and yearning for more information about certain events.
Birkert’s, however, with his natural proclivity to reject all that is technological, would exploit the assertion that perhaps this type of reading is not truly close reading. This is because he believes in “deep reading : the slow and meditative possession of a book” and in this case an online news database consists of short and countless articles. (Birkerts, 146)When the reader has the ability to access limitless articles, he would be inclined to think that it would lead a reader to jump from one article to the next without reading the article closely or perhaps not even finishing it at all before moving onto the next. Birkerts argues that “[e]verything about modern life carries us away from the state that is propitious for deep reading.” (Birkerts, 148) Therefore, this type of reading discourages close reading because there are so many links and options of articles to click on that it is hard to focus long enough to read an article in its entirety with the appropriate attention. Nicholas Carr would undoubtedly align with Birkerts on this point. In his own experience which he chronicles in the article Is Google Making Us Stupid?, he claims “my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do…The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.” (Carr) With so much information flooding the internet it seems to overwhelm some, but these limitless tools can actually be used for close reading.
This is because close reading can be defined by depth as opposed to simple context, in which case these critics would be wrong. The depth of The New York Times online publication is capacious with its gateway to limitless articles. It allows readers to gain knowledge about a subject quickly and easily as well as having the ability to read archived articles with more information. On this point, even Carr cannot disagree because he acknowledges that “[r]esearch that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes.” (Carr) In other words, transferring research from stacks at the library to a database online can allow someone such as Carr to save countless hours on research and potentially focus more on the close reading of the research found.
This gain is a point Birkerts misses because of his fear that “once the world goes fully on-line, there will be no more history of the old kind”, seems faulty as well. (Birkerts, 214) He has the notion that, “[h]istory as we all studied it in school depended not just on the idea of chronological sequence, but also on a fixed coordinates of space and time.” (Birkerts, 214) Allowing students to learn from an online database, instead of a text book, would take away the “fixed coordinates” in which they had originally learned. But to deny the inevitable evolutionary process of learning would mean that Birkerts would be assessing historical learning synchronically in a way that would not allow him to understand the importance of improving learning through technological advancements. Quick and easy access to infinite historical information,however, in reality adds to ones ability to learn instead of flattening history, as Birkerts would lead one to believe. Even Birkerts had to admit that technology “will make it not only possible but irresistible to consume data at what must strike people of the book as very high rates.” (Birkerts, 139) But this “might be an expansion of the short-term memory banks”. (Birkerts, 139) Therefore, it seems even Birkerts cannot argue with the fact that technology allows people to learn at a faster rate then that of normal books. Moving historical education into an electronic arena will change learning, but in a positive manner. With scrupulous analysis, one would realize that this website is a legitimate teaching tool because it allows students to learn about current events in a way not possible in text books, due to the extensive amount of time dedicated to writing and publishing. Students now have the electronic capabilities to learn a great amount of information in a short period of time. The argument could thus be made that with the ability to learn faster students are, in general, more inclined to learn and yearn for more information then ever.
Undoubtedly, The New York Times online edition is inchoate in comparison to the print medium, because evolutionarily the online version is centuries behind its print likeness. Despite this fact, the electronic Times has already obtained aspects of greatness that far exceed that of its predecessor. For example, just today The New York Times wrote an article about the implications of their recent killing of militant chiefs in Iraq. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/world/middleeast/24iraq.html?hp) Although some might believe that viewing the article in this fashion makes me lazy, I would disagree. Instead, I believe that this article has expanded my knowledge about the ongoing conflict in Iraq in a way that I would not have had the ability to do without access to the online version.
Citations -
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid.” Atlantic April 25, 2010: n. pag. Web. 25 Apr 2010. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/>.
Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies. New York: Fsber and Faber INC, 1994. Print.
