The Cambridge University Reporter recently announced it would no longer be publishing in print. This move to e-ink upset Cambridge classics professor and TLS blogger Mary Beard. Writing in her blog “A don’s life,” Beard argued,
OK, if we want the info, it will still be there. But one of the virtues of a canny democracy is that it puts info in the hands of people when they have a few free moments to take it in, and when they least expect it. And they try to educate those who do not actively seek the information out. That means spending more money up front than seems necessary, but it SAVES money in the long run in an educated and well informed citizenry.
Beard’s case, elucidated in a blog entry titled “University democracy — and the end of the Reporter,” is peculiar indeed. That Beard’s argument is itself hosted online reveals an inherent irony to the piece. Beard seems to think that an online edition of the Reporter will arrive by email, and that she, inevitably, will accidentally delete this email. In actuality, the Reporter is available here. The website is a comprehensive database, offering pdfs of the weekly and special issues dating back to 1997. The website, unlike the print edition, is fully searchable — allowing for direct access to topical material. You can, of course, request notifications of publication via email, but deleting said notifications will not destroy/disable the website.
Beard argues that because the journal is going online-only “a less informed work force will be the result.” This is a serious matter indeed, and I agree with Beard’s overall concern. Yet the journal had a yearly cost of £11.25/University subscription or £62.70/posted subscription. Pressuring colleges and academics to purchase an expensive and bulky journal seems, at best, outmoded (and certainly not as democratic as Beard would have you believe). Publishing in pdf means that the journal can easily be transferred to e-book reader, smart phone, or tablet device. Beard correctly critiques the inaccessibility of the journal, yet her assumption that print is the only accessible medium limits her in what she is able, after all, to say about the future of the journal.
What seems necessary in this case, as in many similar cases, is accessible e-ink. Perhaps the Reporter could produce an app for tablets and smart phones? Surely this would not be too difficult. At times like these it seems clear that digital publishing (1) is the most cost-effective way to share information across wide audiences, and (2) needs to adapt its ease-of-use to better put content “into the hands of people when they have a few free moments to take it in.”
Comments