Why Paper Is Eternal - Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press ...

message, but in a very practical way we also choose the medium that best suits
the message, which is the content being communicated. This is reflected in the
functions we assign to digital media, and those for which they seem not quite
right. E-mail is wonderful for many kinds of personal communication, but
there are still situations when it makes more sense to pick up the phone, or
even a sheet of paper. The iPod is hugely popular but e-books have never really
taken off, despite countless product launches by major high-tech companies.
When it comes to delivering news, screens work well for short-form reportage
and commentary that can be read quickly in rapid “information-retrieval” mode
– breaking news, wire-service fare, opinion columns and blog posts under 1,000
words. But for long stories and essays requiring sustained attention and focus,
readers still gravitate to paper, where they can “settle down” and find that
“snatching of serenity.”
This distinction between paper and screens is not just a function of the
physical control the former provides. A more abstract sense of control and
order also inheres in paper. Because it is made of atoms rather than bits, a sheet
of paper exists in the world in the same way that a table or a person exists.
When this obvious fact is discussed at all, it is generally counted as one of the
medium’s flaws: It’s a problem that paper takes up space. But that same fixity in
time and space has other important implications. First, it means that, as
compared to electronic media, paper is relatively immutable. Once you have
printed words on it, removing them is not easy. Again, this is typically
considered a nuisance; one thinks of rubber erasers, on the one hand, and on
the other of how convenient it is to write on a screen where any word can be
erased with a keystroke. In paper’s role as a reading interface, however,
immutability becomes an asset. Unlike a Web page that can be changed in the
49