Do We Want to Keep Our Newspapers?

Citation

Matthews, G. (2004), "Do We Want to Keep Our Newspapers?", New Library World, Vol. 105 No. 3/4, pp. 157-159. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800410526794

The papers published here “… represent the core of a conference that took place at the University of London in March 2001 under the auspices of the Institute of English Studies, the Institute of United States Studies, and the Institute of Historical research”. The conference focus was the concern that “collection of original newspapers in major research libraries were being managed by policies of deaccessioning and destruction”. The debate had been fuelled by Baker's (2000) article, “Deadline: the author's desperate bid to save America's past” published in the New Yorker. Its outspoken and critical content led to it becoming headline news across the world; the conference was called “in an effort to discover some of the main anxieties of the scholarly community, and to reflect on the very real difficulties that face libraries tasked with the challenge of preserving the past so that it may be understood in the future”. McKittrick's well‐researched, concise introduction provides an excellent overview of the history of the newspaper, its collection and provision by libraries and related issues. The reader is reminded of the newspaper's historical significance and the drawbacks of microfilm copies; historians need access to the original artifacts not microfilms or digital copies of microfilms (“the evidence of history is not susceptible to reformatting”); issues relating to bulk and storage are highlighted; many newspapers are now rare, but it is difficult to get up to date information about how many originals survive. The issue of “national” boundaries and acquisition/retention responsibilities in this context is also raised.

In Chapter 2, Nicholson Baker, author of Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper (Baker, 2001) asks: “Do we want to keep our newspapers?”. He offers a view of newspapers and their value for historical scholarship, their collection by libraries and their copying on to microfilm, with originals sold off to be broken up for sale in the birthday market or pulped. He questions the judgements and criteria applied by librarians in the USA and the UK, their lack of communication with each other and the legality of disposal. He also argues that newsprint is a more long‐lived medium than is the general impression. He puts this in the context of his personal experience of acquiring newspapers offered for sale. Following his criticism, he ends with recommendations to address the situation: libraries should post advance notice of proposed discards, following the experience of the US Newspaper Program, other programmes such as Newsplan should be halted until guarantees are made about the retention of originals following microfilming; digitisation programmes for books should learn from the “analogous” experience of newspapers. He ends with an attack on electronic libraries and their proponents who in his view “… want to pay for their costly innovations by dismantling traditional libraries”.

In the following chapter, Karin Wittenborg, university librarian, University of Virginia, acknowledges that there is no single viewpoint on this important and complex issue and suggests some ways to “find a better balance between preservation of and access to scholarly materials”. She defends the past actions of librarians, confirming the option of microfilm in the circumstances as reasonable but admits that “What we failed to address adequately was an appreciation for the experience of the artefact and the assurance of high‐quality microfilm.” But, typical of her pragmatic approach, she asks: “Whose responsibility is it to decide what gets saved in original form and who pays the significant costs of doing so?” She suggests a model of distributed responsibility rather than reliance on national libraries to help to address issues of funding and adequate and accessible space. She stresses the need for long‐term solutions and the involvement of other agencies and publishers. She also warns with regard to microfilming and digitisation of not learning from the mistakes of the past. She agrees with Baker that in attempting to resolve space and preservation issues, librarians “have often given short shrift to the experience of the newspaper artefact”. The issue must be addressed in collaboration with scholars but “As we struggle with scarce resources, there are inevitable trade‐offs. Some things will be saved. Some will not.”

In Chapter 4, Jan van Impe, explains the significance of Leuven University (Belgium) Library's acquisition of newspapers from the British Library Newspaper Library. This offers a case study of “successful” notification of disposal and selection of items desired. The author emphasises the need to embrace both electronic and traditional formats and to acknowledge the current economic and cultural environment. In Chapter 5, Ronald Schuchard, a Professor at Emory University, Atlanta, through his use of the British Library Newspaper Library at Colindale, provides an insight into newspaper research and its value with interesting and entertaining examples. He also offers a familiar criticism of using microfilm. He would like to see the British Library Newspaper Library turned into “a bona fide Rare Newspapers Research and Preservation Centre, a genuine rather than a surrogate archive.” Addressing the cross‐international boundary issue of newspaper retention and access, he urges that the “endangered newspaper print record of human towns and cities must now be seen as a global heritage and responsibility.” Robert Tombs, reader in French history at the University of Cambridge, then considers the scholar's requirements and use of the French newspaper collections at the British Library and their significance for scholars and relationship to collections elsewhere in the world. He puts a strong case for retention of originals. In Chapter 7, Jim McCue, deputy obituaries editor, The Times, considers not just the retention of newspapers but the specific edition or editions which may contain considerable changes, to be preserved. He notes that “In newspaper libraries it is the users, not the librarian, who have the controlling hand”. He also illustrates the opportunities afforded by new technology and digitisation and urges that copyright be revisited in line with this. John B. Hench, in charge of academic and public programmes at the American Antiquarian Society, in Chapter 8 raises several reasons why the AAS might serve as a model of a repository of last resort. He regards Nicholas Baker's call as “courageous, admirable and correct” but adds that those at the AAS “are not without sympathy and empathy for both ends of the opinion spectrum”, and he is not without sympathy for colleagues at the British Library “in their attempts to reconcile the ideal with the realistic. As usual, the right path probably lies somewhere in between.”

This approach is reflected in the next chapter, by Peter Mandler, lecturer in History, University of Cambridge, “Scholars vs library”, with the apt sub‐title, “Grounds for a truce”. Mandler offers a good understanding of the British Library and its situation and that of scholars and presents principles on which custodians and users might agree. He argues for separation of past and future, pointing out that there “is a key distinction between the library's responsibility for what it already has and for what it might in theory acquire”. There needs to be a “spirit of give and take” and informed decision‐making involving a wider range of users. He expresses concern that British Library has been slower than other national libraries with regard to progress in the digitisation of printed matter, noting that his own students regularly turn to US digital resources. He urges the need to campaign and press government for resources to allow the national library to collect and preserve for future research needs and “throw open vast new resources for lifelong learning and active citizenship”, and acknowledges Baker's role in facilitating the realisation of this.

In Chapter 10, “Joint solutions”, Ronald Milne, director of the Research Libraries Support Programme, outlines various of its activities and ways of facilitating cross‐sectoral and cross‐domain collaboration. In the penultimate chapter, Mike Crump, then director of Reader Services and Collection Development at the British Library outlines its policy with regard to newspaper collections. While acknowledging Baker's initiation of the “examination of some of the assumptions that underlie the microfilming and even the subsequent disposal of newspapers” he attests “that the British Library has acted in the best interests of its collection and the current and future researchers who need access to it.” The Library has had to make choices; it has already agreed to involve a wider audience of academics in discussions about disposals.

H.R. Woudhuysen, professor of English at University College, London, in his closing comments, reflects on who are the “we” in the title of the book. It is noted, realistically, that the conference has at worst provided an opportunity to air the questions. One thing that has become clear is that the British Library's case would have benefited from giving out more information and consulting more widely than it did. Whose responsibility is it to keep “national” newspapers and why newspapers are disposed of still seem unclear.

I found the tone of this last chapter less evenly balanced and positive than the overall view I took from the preceding chapters, of librarians, scholars and others seeking to improve awareness of each others' positions and to move forward positively together at an opportune moment in the development of library provision for researchers. This view is perhaps summed up by Baker, when he argues that there is a need for greater understanding of the issues from all sides at a time when publishers, users and libraries are faced with a dynamic environment which presents both challenges (e.g. financial) and opportunities (e.g. technological), and McKittrick who summarises key factors in the way forward:

• •

  the need to replace microfilms in poor condition;

• •

  the potential of new software and digital archives;

• •

  better bibliographical management; and

• •

  collaboration and resource sharing.

This collection of papers reminds us of the rich and varied significance of newspapers and the challenging issues involved in their ongoing accessibility to scholars. Moreover, it offers a fascinating and lively dialogue between librarians and users, of interest and relevance beyond its immediate focus. The conference organisers are to be congratulated on making the proceedings widely available and on bringing together informed and experienced individuals with different perspectives and attitudes. It will be interesting to see how many of the positive suggestions expressed here come to fruition.