Books, Newspapers Outdated? Dan Rather finished

...his report on coverage of President Bush comments on stem cell research with this comment:

Rather: Read a newspaper for more information
News-Journal wire services

NEW YORK -- CBS anchorman Dan Rather had some unusual advice for television viewers who want to learn more about stem cell research: read a newspaper.

Rather made his recommendation Thursday night at the conclusion of CBS' coverage of President Bush's speech announcing his decision to allow limited stem cell research.

Rather recapped in four sentences what Bush had said, then told viewers that "obviously, this is a very complicated subject."

"It's the kind of subject that, frankly, radio and television have some difficulty with because it requires such depth into the complexities of it," he said.

"So we can with, I think, impunity, recommend that if you're really interested in this, you'll want to read in detail one of the better newspapers tomorrow," he said.

With that, Rather signed off the special report, and CBS began airing the latest edition of "Big Brother."

Those of us who have been in the electronic media have known for years that it practically impossible (especially from a cost-effectiveness standpoint) to achieve the kind of in-depth coverage of much subject matter that can easily be achieved in books, periodicals and newspapers. We also know that in many cases it is virtually impossible to achieve the reality and true flavor of many works of fiction. Even when the book's writer is involved in the production of the work as a movie, tv program or audio story, the result is a compromise at best.
Reading books for fun and serious information? It will never go out of style.

Re: Books, Newspapers... "Tr?ada"

Andy have you formed a triad of message threads by adding your post on this subject, 'the future of the paper and ink trades'? Jim Hinsch has looked into the future and given us this pronouncement: news papers, (printed on newsprint) and certain bound books (specifically fiction) of a are useless, he thinks they are a waste of time and also it's good that Dominicans aren't bothering to read them.

In deference to my position (that books and newspapers aren't quite pass?') go to the web site of the New York Times for their editorial on the President's speech.

---AUG 10, 2001

---President Bush Waffles

---"Last night George W. Bush had one of those rare opportunities a president gets to take a bold step that might define his administration. Instead, he ducked.

In a national television address, the president said he was supporting federal funding for stem cell research. But he added restrictions so rigid that they may constitute a near-ban.

After a long prelude, describing his moral debate over a decision and all the terrible diseases that stem cell research might help cure, Mr. Bush endorsed federally funded research only in cases where the cells were extracted from human embryos in the past and made to grow their own colonies, or lines. There is a very limited number of lines of these cells, not enough to provide the diversity scientists need. Furthermore, the existing lines are not necessarily immortal. Scientists believe that some may eventually stop providing stem cells and need to be replaced.

By limiting the federal role so severely, Mr. Bush will hamper the government's ability to spur this important new area of medical research. Scientists hope to be able to coax stem cells to evolve into replicas of cells needed to repair diseased or damaged tissue. For example, someday they may be able to create new connections in spinal cords and regenerate brain activity in Alzheimer's patients.

To get the stem cells, the scientists must extract them from blastocysts -- early-stage embryos, just a few days old. In the past, most of these blastocysts were acquired from fertility clinics, which would otherwise destroy them. Lately, researchers have begun to create their own embryos, a procedure Mr. Bush also opposes."

[ for the rest go to the http://www.nytimes.com ]

Re: Books, Newspapers... "Tr?ada"

Yes, this post was in reference to the long previous thread that books and newspapers were useless given today's modern media as espoused by JH. Dan Rather's comments are just another example of the necessity for printed media even with today's communication capabilities.

Literacy! Common Sense! ANDY!!

I this week shall nominate our Andy for the 2001 "3rd World Literacy & Common Sense Award", initiated by Listin Diario in 1986. The final results will be reported in the New York Times in Oct. 2001; a 20 word summary will be available on the internet & NBC in Jan 2002. Previous winners have been Billy Graham, Ronald Reagan, Dan Rather, Leonel Fernandez, & Walter Cronkite. Andy, we all owe you a a vote of thanks.

Re: Literacy! Common Sense! ANDY!!

Prof, thank you for the accolade but it should be shared with everyone who contributed to the discussion. It's interesting to note the irony of the subject matter juxtaposed with the media used to propagate (and argue) the merits of printed matter. Herr Gutenberg would be proud.

Re: Books, Newspapers... "Tr?ada"

Books as physical objects will not pass away to be replaced by electronic signals read from glowing, hand-held screens. Nor will bookstores vanish. But they will coexist hereafter with a vast multilingual directory of digitized texts, assembled from a multitude of sources. . ."

Jason Epstein, in Preface to Book Business: Publishing Past, Present, and Future