Editor's Note, 2/19

I love the Internet. More specifically, I love using it to discover news shortly after it occurs. It’s a quick, convenient and thorough way to survey the current state of affairs in our world. In this way the Internet brings people together as we read and converse about similar topics, discussing ideas and nuances in opinion that we would not have without the digital fountain of information. While promoting cohesiveness, it simultaneously promotes individuality on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, where people follow those who interest them. That being said, the Internet can make imitation somewhat easier. After perusing enough Pitchfork articles, someone could probably come up with enough genre blends, snarky lines and sonic landscapes to at least sound like a music writer. All in all, though, the Internet is a wealth of information, and imitation is often the first step in creating something original.

While perusing the Internet the other day, I saw a trending topic proclaiming a kind of digital dark age, presumably where we would lose a great majority of our digital information and be thrust into barbarism. Upon further investigation, I found the event that triggered a slew of articles from multiple sources was simply the vice president of Google discussing an almost hypothetical situation. Basically, he described how all new software must be compatible with old software, but that this compatibility comes at the expense of the technology. Eventually, in the distant future, compatibility may be sacrificed to gain a competitive edge, and we may lose important quantities of information. While an interesting concept, it certainly did not warrant media outlets compelling readers to print out all of their cherished pictures and important documents. Still, this type of yellow journalism is certainly not a modern phenomenon.

Much more interesting, I think, is this story’s reflections of the difficulties of modern specialization of skills. To be effective, well-learned citizens of society, we use technologies and believe ideologies that we do not fully understand. Most of us do not truly understand the technologies that bring us the information that affect our opinions, thoughts and beliefs. Granted, technological knowledge can be pretty superficial, but it also reflects a deeper failure of not having the time to truly comprehend and empathize with others’ ideas. Could I actually understand the entirety of an idea developed by an executive who spends nearly all his waking moments pondering the nuances of his field? Perhaps I could grasp the idea's broad overview and general concept, but I could never do so at the level of an expert. Could I be convinced to action by someone who has slightly twisted the idea to fit their ulterior motive, such as sensationalism or publicity? Possibly.

As a person who designs the layout for the print edition of the arts section of The Chronicle, it is very easy for me to call for a greater emphasis on the hard copy of our newspaper. I don’t mean this in an old-fashioned or traditionalist way, but practically speaking, I believe the paper edition of The Chronicle helps bring the Duke community together. Most of our traffic comes from people who see articles on social media—which is awesome, and I hope our clicks keep growing—but the Internet is very much a public place. Chronicle articles are interspersed with pertinent news from around the world. Reading the print edition is a much more private, intimate experience. It’s just you and Duke.

Also, the print edition focuses all Duke news in one place. All of it is more relatable and understandable, with primary sources usually readily available if a reader wants to look more into a story. As a result it acts as a catalyst of campus discourse. Of course, the online edition serves the same purpose; however, under the guise of anonymity, many commenters seem to contribute to discussions without thinking, thus hurting the overall dialogue.

I hope The Chronicle continues to grow in the digital realm, but I don’t think this means the print edition should be written off. All newspapers could benefit from increased support for hard copies, but publications continue to push “digital first” as if the Internet was created last year, and as if they believe that they are getting ahead of the curve by developing online features. A greater emphasis on a print edition might mean features such as print exclusives or more aggressive distribution. However, I don’t think these developments need to come at the expense of the growth of our digital version.

In a changing world it might seem weird to re-develop an old medium, but overall it could help bring this school together. Regardless, we won’t know unless we try.