Do We Want To Keep Our Newspapers?

Citation

Duckett, B. (2004), "Do We Want To Keep Our Newspapers?", Library Review, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 238-239. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530410531893

There can be few more basic cultural artefacts than newspapers. Following the disquiet, furore even, caused by the British Library (and other major libraries) disposing of newspaper holdings – fuelled in particular by the vigorous attacks of Nicholson Baker in the New Yorker – a conference was held in London in 2001 under the auspices of the Institute of English Studies, the Institute of United States Studies, and the Institute of Historical Research. This attractive volume is a collection of the papers presented to that conference.

David McKitterick's introduction is a comprehensive and lucid overview of the whole subject of preserving newspapers and the technical issues involved. It should be read by every librarian and manager. “Most librarians do not like newspapers” he admits, and goes on to say why.

Nicholson Baker's is the first paper. It is a vigorous attack on libraries, and the British Library in particular. His account of the BL's disposal of foreign papers, his own efforts to stop the disposal, and his attempts to buy up what he could, is graphic and, for librarians, worrying. Baker is particularly good at giving the case for using hardcopy; a case enhanced by several colour plates from the volumes he managed to save, and reinforced by several of the other contributors to the conference. The failure of microfilm as an adequate surrogate is another point echoed by critics, though University Librarian, Karin Wittenborg, and Lecturer, Peter Mandler, pay tribute to the benefits of microfilm. Indeed, Mandler goes on to say that UK librarians have not been imaginative enough in using technology to allow us access to newspapers.

The newspaper as an artefact is another point much discussed; frequent comparison is made between newspapers and archives, and even museum objects. We don't throw away rare books when they are microfilmed or digitised, why should newspaper volumes be different? Librarians, complains Baker, do not realise the extreme rarity of hardcopy runs, a point further illustrated by French scholar, Robert Tombs (who finds many French newspapers in the BL that are not in France) and Jan van Impe of Leuven University Library (Belgium), whose library was a grateful beneficiary of BL's disposal of hardcopy foreign newspapers, having been destroyed twice (1914 and 1940).

In contrast to the scholars who bemoan the lack of hardcopy, the Times Deputy Obituaries Editor points out that newspapers themselves may soon be issued in electronic form only, with paper copies discontinued. The problems of accessing and archiving electronic data, and ownership of information, are far more pressing problems. The library community, led by the BL, is to be congratulated on grasping these nettles. Wittenborg also highlights the more serious problem of archiving film, television and digital media. “Enough bickering” is the plea of Mandler in “Scholars vs libraries: grounds for a truce”, who sympathizes with librarians, who have the problems, but not the power to solve them. He takes the academic community to task for not using their political clout on behalf of libraries.

On the positive side, John Hench of The American Antiquarian Society, offers a North American “refuge model” as a solution and supports Eliot and Yeats scholar, Ronald Schuchard's suggestion, of locating newspaper microfilm at St Pancras, keeping Colindale as a hardcopy newspaper archive. Ronald Milne, Director of the Research Support Libraries Programme, outlines some of the measures relating to the cross‐sectoral Distibuted National Collection programme in which solutions to the resource‐access issue is being tackled through online networks and gateways. The National Newspaper Project (US) and Newsplan (UK) are also cited as useful models of distributed responsibility. The Public Record Office is held up as a model to follow, especially on the originals vs surrogates issue.

Mike Crump, for the British Library, puts the whole BL newspaper issue in perspective, arguing that the BL has always acted responsibly (e.g. by following IFLA guidelines), that alternative models are misleading, and that the Library is co‐operating with a wide range of stakeholders. Professor of English, H.R. Woudhuysen, however, in his closing comments, dissents: “By not keeping our newspapers, the British Library has impoverished us all: it has stolen our evidence.”

This brief account cannot do justice to the many arguments and insights in this useful book, but I hope sufficient has been said to convince custodians of print and their managers that big and important issues are raised. This is an inspirational read.