All sorts of institutions are in big trouble because of the internet, and they’re scared as hell. Newspapers can’t figure out how they’ll keep making money; the music business is terrified that its business model is evaporating. Britannica has faded to irrelevance for anyone with an internet connection. I think that’s the tip of things, and anyone who has anything to do with information (schools, governments, book publishers, television, public broadcasters, among others) are all going to see their apple carts upset with fruit rolling all over the place in the next decade.
I’ve been thinking about this particularly in my role as President of the Board of Directors of the Atwater Library, where we are struggling (as many libraries do) to try to articulate why we are important, why we should get funding.
The big problem, I think, is that institutions tend to be wrong about what they are actually for.
That is, they have defined their existence by various functions they perform within a given ecosystem. In the context here, these institutions grew up in an ecosystem where information was scarce, and information distribution limited. The ecosystem has changed (info distribution & access is abundant), and institutions are having a hard time adapting. So: music labels think they sell CDs to people; newspapers think they get writers to make news articles, and get people to read them; libraries think they give people access to books and computers; universities think they provide a place for people to learn and do research; governments think they try to improve society by implementing policies wanted by the people … etc. But I think they are all wrong.
All those kinds of definitions get you tied up in the functional stuff you do, and they don’t really get to the core of what’s important, what the real thing is that you are doing. I don’t have answers, but any business/institution that thinks like this is going to get creamed in the next ten years, unless they take a look at what they are really for.
It seems to me the porn business, one of the most profitable businesses in the Universe, gets this in a way no one else does. Because the porn biz understands exactly what it is for:
Pornographers don’t sell pornography; they provide orgasms.
Looking at it that way, they don’t seem to care much about how they do it – they’ll just find ways to give people the orgasms however people want them given. Dirty postcards, magazines, prono theatres, VHS and Betamax, phone sex, online photos, online videos, chat lines, webcams, cybersex and God knows what else. You don’t hear the porn business whingeing about Intellectual Property and illegal downloads, and consumers as thieves, because they don’t have time: they’re too busy trying to give the world what it seems to want, more orgasms.
So, stepping out of the peepshow and back to the respectable world, why are newspapers, for instance, having such a hard time? I think it’s because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what they do.
The value of a newspaper is not that it gives me information; the value of a newspaper is how it selects information – what it puts in and what it leaves out.
So: Newspapers are not for providing information; newspapers are for selecting what information I should get. (And maybe: for helping me make decisions? – not sure about that one).
And the problem is that newspapers, for the most part, are in a tizzy because they ask: how can we compete as information providers in a world where there is unlimited information available on the web? And the answer, I think, is that they should stop competing as information providers, and start focusing on their real skills and usefulness, which is information selection. Note, by the way, that this does not mean that newspapers should stop providing information, but rather that that task might necessary in order to do a good job of selecting information.
I keep coming back again and again to something I heard Joi Ito say a couple of years ago on some podcast or other:
mp3s are just metadata associated with a musician.
That’s pretty big, pretty heavy. I don’t think I quite have it fixed in my brain yet, but the idea is that a thing’s value is defined by how well people know it, and how highly they consider it. Mp3s are meta data that allow people to “find” an artist, and allow them to determine how much they value that artist. (What that means for the music biz I’m not sure, but we’ll find out in the next ten years).
For newspapers, you might say the same thing: news articles and columns are just metadata associated with the newspaper. But the real value a newspaper performs is not giving me good articles, it’s putting it all together. The mere provision of information is worthless now, because anyone can do it (even me).
This is why blogs – at least in the techno-intelligencia – win. Blogs are excellent selectors of information, while newspapers are pretty clunky at it – because for the past 300 years they existed in an ecosystem where information was scarce. Now information (and access to it) is abundant. So a site like BoingBoing becomes one of the most popular on the net: their craft is not providing information, it’s selecting it. And they’re good at it.
And given the huge overabundance of information on the web, we need all the help we can get in selecting. So newspapers need to work harder at providing that service, bringing that core skill (which they have always had – the Editor is the God of the newspaper) to bear on the web. Have a flip thru the Gazette, or, God help you, visit their web site, and is it any wonder they’re having a hard time? Half of it is the same generic wire-service information that’s in any other paper or news site on the web. That’s not giving me much value. It’s lazy selection and boring, and lazy and boring are a dime a dozen these days. So work harder at finding and selecting interesting content (from the web, there’s tons of it), take down you stupid registration system down, put up a decent navigable web site designed by someone who understands the Internet, and get on with things and stop whingeing.
This was the idea behind earideas: that what’s missing is not good audio out there, but a really good way to find and hear the good audio. (I hope we’re succeeding … anyone have any comments on earideas? Have you checked it out yet? Do you like it?).
There is lots of work to do, and I guess you and I and many other people will be busy for the next few years figuring this all out.
Oh, and any ideas about what a library is truly for? Some help would be much appreciated in deciding that – I’ve got some suggestions, but it hasn’t quite crystalized in the old brain yet.
UPDATE: Interesting proposition about wordpress and learning, that suggests a way education might start changing. [via blogsavvy; via bentrem twitter]
UPDATE II: Stemming from a debate about the value of political groups on Facebook, Mat’s started thinking about political platforms on the web.
Good articulation of a bunch of different ideas, that I think are indeed converging. Interesting to consider how an mp3 (and its metadata’ness) relates to the purpose and function of libraries.
>any ideas about what a library is truly for?
The one thing libraries have working in their favor is physical, public space. This is something that no web app will ever have. Libraries should become the offline equivalent of the most spectacular media-consumption social web application you can imagine, only in physical form.
You should be able to go to a library and participate in media consumption with others. Decide together how things rate against one another. Find new things. Come away with new knowledge and the benefit of a shared human experience.
As much as the new web is “social” it’s still a very solitary experience. I think much can be done to make the web a much more person-to-person place by putting it in front of a bunch of people, physically in the same space.
So as the books on the shelves become less relevant, the physical space itself could be leverage to do great things among people.
I don’t know. Is this crazy talk?
for me, a library is a place to learn, and also a public space where citizens can meet and discuss
I go to libraries when I need to access info that I can’t get on the net.
Your argument is interesting but the newspaper stuff goes against the pothole-on-my-street theory. I’d sooner see newspapers trying to score really ultra specific info about my neighbourhood.
@heri, @mat: thanks for feedback: but i still think the things you both describe are “things a library does” ….but there is more fundamental value that has to be understood (i haven’t yet). that is, “place to learn” “meet and discuss” “offline equivalent of media consumption, social web app”… these are are specific things that libraries do or might do to fulfill some core purpose to society.
put another way, why is an offline social web ap important? why is learning important? why is meeting and discussing important? what is the fundamental *thing* that a library accomplishes which is vital to society, and which is achieved by the various suggestions you guys have put forth. What is the real end to the means you have described?
i don’t mean any of that facetiously, and i have some intuitions about what the answers might be, but i’m very uncertain about them.
but i’ll give it a bash: something like this, a bit rambly and messy, but …here goes:
the act of finding and digesting information, of learning from a public institution such as a library is actually the very substance that creates community, the ties that bind together a society, and give disparate elements the sense of belonging to something. these ties are what create a sense of responsibility to the health of the community. especially in a multi-cultural country like ours, we *need* to have public physical spaces with the objective of providing access to information, to learning and growing; since in the simple act of getting information we need, we build a more stable and healthy system (maybe we can call it a network). without public spaces for information exchange, our society – bombarded by information from all directions – loses a sense that it is indeed a coherent community.
i think somehow this is why public institutions: schools, libraries, churches, newspapers, and even cafes are important. because the finding and sharing of information is the means by which community is built and established.
need to think more about this, but there is something in it maybe.
[& i’ll have to rework this and make it an actual post].
@kg: i don’t think what i’m saying goes at all against the pothole in the street argument, in fact it supports it. newspapers need to do a better job of selecting the information to meet the needs of their readership. eg pothole stuff. the question is: where does that information come from? the newspaper’s traditional answer for potholes is: our local reporters. which is expensive. much cheaper to buy lots of generic wire service articles. but that’s a bad selection of content, done for the wrong reasons (because local reporters are expensive). there are all sorts of ways to get good info about pothole problems, for instance neighbourhood blogs etc. not necessarily just reporters.
i think one of the reasons newspapers are doing so poorly is precisely that they have watered down the local content and are offering mostly generic wire service reprints, which is exactly what we find on ccn.com or cbc.ca or wherever, meaning that my local paper is offering little extra value. they are trying to cheaply *provide information* but not doing a good job of *selecting information* that will be relevant to their readers.
Great post.
You guys have summed up a lot of important points.
OK, how about more succinctly: to make information consumption and sharing (as distinct from learning) more valuable through physical (that is, in-person) interaction.
heh… well this is the problem: even if i have it right, it’s hard to describe this thing succinctly without sounding a bit dull & abstract.
but again, the question i am trying to answer is:
WHY is it important to make “information consumption and sharing (as distinct from learning) more valuable through physical (that is, in-person) interaction” ?
That statement relies on the word “valuable” to define it’s worth. But why is info consumption/sharing valuable in the first place? ie. why should we care that a library might make it *more* valuable.
My library provides a baseline – a way for all members of a community to access as many aspects of culture that are deemed ‘important’ as possible. So, in my small town, people can borrow books (inc graphic novels), movies, music CDs, Playstation and Xbox games. They can access computers, Xboxes and Playstations and microfiches. So, they have a ‘best of’ of modern and past cultures, and whatever documents which are locally important that have so far not be digitised.
So no-one in my community has any excuse – they can access most of the best of modern culture. It seems to me as important for elderly people to see young people playing games as it is for young people to see other people reading books.
But while we are doing the Le Courbusier ‘a home is a machine for living in’ type thinking, we need to answer another question. If we ask what libraries are for, and answer “for producing engaged, educated members of the community”, we have to then ask what people are for. And there are lots of answers for that – as many answers as people, perhaps. My answer is: ‘a person is a machine for improving the environment of his community’. Now all I need to do is define ‘improve’, ‘environment’ and ‘community’.
what exactly do you mean by “and” ? ;-)
@chris > If we ask what libraries are for, and answer “for producing engaged, educated members of the community”
I disagree. I’m not sure you can single out libraries as fulfilling this function. What about the education system? (Libraries run parallel to it). What about the online information-rich world? (Libraries fulfill a similar, but somehow more limited version of it) What about X,Y,Z other things that very possibly do more every day to raise our new generation of engaged citizens (ie where libraries are failing).
@hugh > But why is info consumption/sharing valuable in the first place? Because it helps people understand the world around them, thus enriching their lives.
But to be clear, I don’t think libraries will be the prime movers of information consumption/sharing — the online world will be that. Libraries can serving an supporting/enhancing role by rooting that exchange in physical space and real people (something online can never achieve by definition).
A bold move for a library would be to be the first physical library space devoid of books (or any other printed media for that matter) altogether; at minimum it would be good press(?). Have a bunch of computers, tablets, eBook readers, laptop hookups & A/V equipment and comfortable surrounds… and let people play. Have personnel on hand whose sole purpose is to help people tap the information pipe. Organize events (or build some kind of software) that lets people in physical proximity share and explore together. Force people to share what they’re discover, foster discussion and debate, make evident the progress (if any) that’s being made at that site. Pull people out of their homes and make them have fun with the informational world that exists in the ether around them. Hell, libraries could be excellent places to have people come together to build new things. Co-working spaces might be a good model for the future library — only more open, more accessible to the general public. To me, that’s what Digital Literacy should be about, but I’m likely digressing (as I tend to do).
@mat: why would you have to “single out” libraries? the point is (for me anyway) to try to define as best they can what they are *for* at the most fundamental level, and then try to figure out ways for them to do that better. and ways to really articulate that.
why do libraries have to be the “prime movers”? or, put another way, what can libraries offer that the other movers can’t? (the answer seems to be: provide space)… but then why is space important exactly?
maybe answer: because the experience of physical interaction is of great importance to us. why? what i am proposing is that: physically running into other people who are seeking “information” that we are not even interested in still builds the social network between us that is the stuff which *makes* society, makes a society healthy (ie reduces violence, reduces crime, increases health, increases happiness, increases innovation, employment etc).
i love your radical proposal to ditch all the books, except for the part where you ditch the books. leave the books, leave the newspapers magazines, but add the xboxes, add the social events/software, and building workshops, torrent pipes and ereaders and tablets and AV equipment etc.. (but for gods sake, leave the books!).
i think what chris says above is really important:
“t seems to me as important for elderly people to see young people playing games as it is for young people to see other people reading books.”
This again is what I am getting at. I agree wholeheartedly. And (not to keep whipping this dead horse): why is this important?
I say single out because I don’t want us to content ourselves with saying libraries do X *too*… as I said, other societal institutions are probably better positioned to produced educated, engaged etc etc. And yes, they should be prime movers, at least in SOME regard… which is what I’m trying to identify. Libraries should *lead* in some respect (not just me me-too) and this is my point.
I will try to rearticulate again:
Though the physicality of public space, libraries connect people and/with information to build *real community.
(*real as opposed to online)
I think you are onto the right thread with the “physical interaction builds society” bit. I think that’s the one _really_ good thing church-going used to give onto society – the coming togetherness. Perhaps libraries can be thought of modern, secular “churches” where information (or maybe ‘awareness of the world’) is “preached” through self- and shared- discovery? Is this radical?
And about the no-books thing, yeah I sympathize with your objection. I love books too! But my starting assumption is that the influence of physical media will continue to decline over time. Certainly sitting down with the tangible “Crime and Punishment” is still a far superior experience to reading online or on an eBook reader — this is not in dispute — but I’m not sure this will continue to be the case for much longer, and nor should libraries be solely about the consumption ‘experience’ (if this was the case, why don’t we build libraries with comfy sofas and full food service?). So if you’re talking about building a model for the future, best be looking forward (obvious). Put another way, I think it is now more important for our communities to connect citizens with the material that can be found online, rather than the material that can be found exclusively in physical media. I’m sure your instinct will confirm the fact that books-on-shelves simply do not mean what they used to. Play that sentiment out to its logical conclusion and you have to let the books go, in favor of bits. Why not be at the edge of this thing? Might you not be letting a “romantic” notion of the tangible book interfere with the consideration of the best way forward?
U say put some x-boxes into the libraries? Sounds like a good plan. I was at a community center where all the kids were saying what they wanted for Christmas, “world peace,” etc, and one sad looking little black girl said “I want a computer.” It kinda broke my heart a bit cuz the rest of the kids undoubtedly had ’em. Kids would be thrilled if you could hook up some wiis etc at libraries.
But back to the potholes in the street theory – I think such an undertaking would require massive amounts of micro-reporting which would be prohibitively expensive. Like, I want to see a video of what I missed at the karaoke night at Maz last Thursday, I want to know what’s on special at Akhavan (without going through the dreaded publisac), I’d like to know who was yelling at each other on Sherbrooke and Decarie and why. The possibility of a bunch of bloggers providing this primary source info is pretty slim. So getting this stuff would be a reporting-heavy, not an editing-heavy process.
@matt:”Might you not be letting a “romantic†notion of the tangible book interfere with the consideration of the best way forward?” …
no, i don’t think so. i think somehow the importance of physical space of a library (compared with the virtual space of the net) is echoed in the physical information in a book, versus digital bits & bites. books transmit more information than just that which is contained in the text itself (or, to coin a phrase, the medium is the message). i think some forms of information will migrate away from the printed page. others will stay.
i am a fan of small-scale implementation of radical ideas, with feedback loops. i am opposed to radical discarding of things that have been a central part of (some) human existence for thousands of years. build stuff: yes. tear down stuff: no.
IF we find that indeed books fade completely from use, then by all means, have a funeral and let them go. but before that i see no advantage to artifically killing them off.
and i see disadvantages: we live in an ecosystem, and eradicating one species (eg books) because we think they are not as effective text-transferers, may have unintended consequences.
@kg: i bet lots of people thought the chances were slim of a bunch of amateurs making the world’s biggest encyclopedia for free; ditto building the most prolific audiobook publisher in the world on a budget of $0; ditto building a free operating system. if you are interested in reading about Akhavan, and the fight on Decarie & Sherb, then I’ll bet you 5 dollars there are others interested in writing about it. what wikipedia did was make a sensible and useful platform that allowed amateurs to build an encyclopedia. if newspapers were smart, they would be thinking about how to do the same thing for news, in addition to whatever else they are doing. note: what that means exactly, i’m not sure, we don’t have the platform. but we need it.
but newspapers could start by having a daily digest of news in appearing in local blogs. which would reflect exactly the stuff that josette blogger wanted to write about (which is a good proxy for the things joe blogger wants to read about). which, true, is a small subset of the general population – but then so are wikipedia editors.
this would be editing-heavy, and not reporter-heavy, and wouldn’t even require anything new, just a shift in how you think about what a newspaper does.
for an international version of this, see:
http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/
ok, keep the books. they look nice, anyway.
but the rest still stands. make the library into an information church.
It’s interesting- I just read that today’s kids are using the library more than ever. What libraries do is what Borders/Barnes & Noble and other bookstores do well- they allow you to search for not only what your looking for, but what else is in the neighborhood that might be interesting. You can’t do this as much on line, because boolean search directs you towards specific targets, not neighborhoods of related data. Plus, what you get is only as good as your search.
This is nothing compared to the fact that all the really great and expensive journals are not available online and can only be accessed through a library, ie. The Journal of educational Psychology. Okay, it’s not People magazine, but it’s a heck of a lot more useful.
But what happens if researchers and academics decided it was too costly to publish these journals, and went to restricted online access to members of the Society/academics only? Any of us interested in learning more will be left out in the cold. That’s not gonna work, either.
I think libraries who are feeling underused need to consider doing more community outreach and make the library fun again. Study rooms, like in college, where snacks are allowed. Weekly story hours like they have in local bookshops. Teen movie events on weekends. Local Knitting group night. Gotta make libraries cool and part of the community.
Sometimes I see librarians who are pretty protective of the books, are very into order and perfection, somewhat like they don’t want people coming in and messing with the books TOO much. In order to make libraries better used, you have to make them indispensable to the community, and a hub of community. Take suggestions not only from current users, but ask say, parents of kids in the local middle school why they do or do not use their community library.
Libraries are awesome, but they are underused because they are no longer the only community portal to information. But you have to be willing to make them a place people want to go and choose to go as a destination, and work with hours to reflect that as well.
@whitney > It’s interesting- I just read that today’s kids are using the library more than ever.
that doesn’t feel right. the libraries i’ve been in and around are certainly not bursting with children… can you link to that? sounds like propaganda to me…
and don’t fret too much about journal exclusivity. i’m confident information (and knowledge) will continue to flow more and more freely… this is a rolling stone that will not be pushed back uphill
Forgot to mention – our library has lots of sofas. We also have a restaurant in the library – great cheap food and coffee. And regularly changing exhibitions.
We make a family trip most Saturdays, even if we just want a snack.
We are very lucky it seems.
The reason bloggers won’t be reporting hardcore info about their neighbourhood is the same reason that local papers frequently report local musical output to be ‘the greatest album ever made.’
They’re afraid to make enemies and risk getting punched in the nose when they walk down the street.
There’s a physical, tangible aspect to reporting on stuff close to home. It requires a ton of resolve or pay to actually cross that line into devil-may-care if they figure out where I live and burn down my home territory. Amateurs will never do it.
When it comes to a pothole, sure they might report what they heard, but a lot of the best stuff – who my neighbour is banging, whether that jerk in the park is a child molester, etc – will not get touched. Yet still I agree the initiative is noble and should be pursued.
The Gaz has mentioned in recent staff meetings that they want to involve local websites. They apparently have a program where they’ll link to you under certain circumstances, ie: undoubtedly another ripoff deal like their freelancer agreement, but I’m just speculating on the details.
Here’s a few:
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/01/07/01072008waclibrary.html
and
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Dec30/0,4670,InternetLibraries,00.html
@kg: v interesting…and i have to say i totally agree that newspapers must continue “hard news” reporting, in fact should do more of it (another reason they are fading from relevance). amateurs will never be able to do what the pros do, nor should they.
which in a way is the point … again, given that there *are* amateurs doing lots of stuff that people are reading (all my news consumption starts on blogs, which sometimes point out to pro news stories), what is it that newspapers can do that *no one* else can do? or what can they do better. that’s what they should be doing. any dummy can reprint wire service articles.
the point is that newspapers have to stop seeing the web as competition, and instead figure out how the web will help them better serve their readers. if they say: “we write articles that people read,” then they are ignoring a huge swath of information that they cannot afford to write, that might be available online, and that people want to read.
“The Gaz has mentioned in recent staff meetings that they want to involve local websites. They apparently have a program where they’ll link to you under certain circumstances,” …
heh. somehow i won’t hold my breath for a revolution in how news gets reported in montreal.
from my reading of those articles i don’t see anything about how those numbers have evolved over time (this should be the key piece of information no?)
and i’m skeptical about the youth-centric focus… i think it’s *highly* likely that this represents 1) teens popping into the library to surf the net; 2) univ students that are artificially dependent on libraries due to the way courses are structured. these facts are fine, but i don’t think they fit into the concept of a “tomorrow’s library”
[…] (Jan. 14): Hugh McGuire compares newspapers to pornographers and says that selection of content, not creation of it, should be the goal of their websites. […]
Hi, just jumped aboard. Very interesting stuff, and stuff I have been thinking about for years.
While I have given much thought to newspapers, Hugh’s worries about the Atwater Library started me to worry too. I lived right across the street — well between it and the Reddy Memorial Hospital — when I was about 10 years old. Never went into the place though till I did a story on it for the the Downtowner.
But the more I thought about it, I would do the same with the library as I would with a newspaper given command. And I do mean command. It takes leadership to get out of this trouble. That, and an idea.
Right now I am in Hong Kong working for an outfit that is making so much money that it hardly needs leadership or an idea. In fact, it is quite hostile to both, sailing with the winds of China exports at our backs, leaving us to trim a halliard here and there, now and then.
But what I would do with the Mechanics’ Institute – aka, the Atwater Library – is first recall, and then venerate its boot straps tradition, and use it as a regimental colour. Have that tradition underpin its every statement, not only for external consumption but enbed it in your soul and the souls of the staff. This is no time for suave sophistication, but belief. Or as we said — but sadly say no more at the Y’s Kamp Kanawana — you can if you wanna.
Next is to identify assets, which Hugh has largely done, that is a physical space, and a fairly attractive one, too. Bags of potential. Then we just follow what Hugh said regarding newspapers, that is engage in a process of selection, a selection that would engage your public. Which rather like a newspaper’s is largely defined by locality. That is, Montreal, and that is Anglo-Quebec. Specialise in that area and you will find a following. Have talks and seminars and meetings on that subject. Become known as the specialist in the area. Fake it till you make it.
What I am suggesting is what Hugh suggested.
I am not entiredly espousing this course of action, but I think it is worth serious consideration. Yet something of this nature is needed, something that is likely to appeal to the broad band of locals, while at the same time being special to them something that others can match. It’s no good saying that we will specialise in food because all our locals are interested in food. That is too generic and doesn’t make them feel special.
Here in Hong Kong, I have been arguing that the second English newspaper (There are a half dozen Chinese dailies) focus not on business as it was doing but on the courts and circulate around the law courts. It had a tiny 4,000 circulation and lawyers here are allowed to advertise. But they only advertise in law journals which appeal to other lawyers and not the clients they wish to reach. I also suggested it appeal to men because women are not serious buyers of newspapers by volume, though they are much sought because they are the chief purchasers of retail goods.
This is the serious newspaper conumdrum.
In response, my idea was to re-create an old time women’s section with the traditional sex, recipies and disease content appealing to the women most likely to buy the retail goods advertised, while at the same time, go after male readers hammer and tong with a wash of crime, war and politics, plust sports, of course.
Given that men are the bulk of newspaper readers, if the Standard could make serious inroads into male newspaper readers, then its rival, the South China Morning Post (circ. 70,000), would be seriously crippled and faced with its huge expenses, would be vulnerable to stalling economically at a far higher circulation level than the Standard.
This is the non-vegetarian view of the newspaper business.
Today, I have tossed that idea out because the Standard has decided to become a free circulation paper and is perhaps up to 20,000 to 30,000 daily.
I have found that while men are the only serious newspaper buyers by volume, women will take nearly 50 per cent of the freebees. Why? Because they are free and because they are not committed to lugging a great wad of paper with them because they paid for it (though I find that they do hold on to freebees longer than they imagined the would). Add to that, there is no fuss and muss in fetching change from change purses deep inside larger purses deep inside even larger bags. The freebee is so so simple. It is the ideal home for retail today.
None of this undercuts what others — kg — have said about local reporting. That means getting back to public meeting where anyone who spoke would have his name and street attached to the quote and there would be lots of quotes. This is not a question of better writing but better research. It is not so much that reporters have to be brave enough to report and face down a thug- more important is that they are hard working enough to go through all it takes to chase around the hall and get people’s names and addresses. And have the gumption and the smarts to walk into a forbidding police station and start asking questions on the cops’ home turft — and the right questions too.
Anyway, enough said.
Hey all,
I have not read all this stuff yet so maybe what I am saying is completely already said and done.
But Porn is about structuring feelings and desires. Definitely setting up frameworks that explain when and where is the right time is to feel or experience something. And perhaps, as I am concerned with respect to porn: Who is being invited to feel those things. Porn is not about giving me an Orgasm, it’s about giving Hugh an orgasm.
What I like about Libraries and blogs is that they do not structure. They present a variety of alternatives to pretty much anyone. You could fulfill your desire by reading a book, or getting a magazine, or joining the chess club at ALCC. You could just sit there and stare at people and creep out the cute ones. It’s a library it’s a public space. For better, and best, but also for worst. Sure that makes it a hard sell, but it makes it infinitely more valuable than porn.
To make it clear:
Porn offers one very particular type of orgasm.
Libraries, if you were to do some careful research under fiction, erotica and photography, probably offer dozens.
Don’t make libraries be like porn, make porn be like libraries :)
I should go read your post now, but i have to leave the library before they lock me in.
heh… not arguing that libraries should act like porn … just that libraries (and newspapers etc) must figure out what their core (not functional) purpose in society, and out of that answers and direction will … er … come.
hi,
oops, don’t know what happened there,
Selection is, in a way, the key to my local library too. There is an assumption that a library will select books and hold them forever. If you spend much time around libraries you soon find this to be false. I have spent time in libraries, know the assumption to be false, and understand why it is false: but I am still attached to it.
I fully accept that a commercial library (say the video store) will only hold titles that it can make money out of. But I when I read about a book I fully expect that I will be able to either find a copy at my local library or get it through inter-library loan.
Part of the joy of the library is that it is not overtly commercial. It is an advertising free zone and is owned by the community. It is also a nice place to be. I often find myself talking about books, movies or music to people as we stand around the stacks of recently returned items looking for something interesting. (Quite conversations, of course.) Other borrowers and staff have made some great reccomendations. Indeed I hang around the recently returned items because I find that the things I like are likely to be frequently borrowed, and know that about 75% of the music and DVD collections are out at any one time.
I should add that the selection is also important in a positive sense. The DVD collection, for example, caters very well for people of very different tastes. The Librarian most involved with this collection seems not only to be very interested in film, but into talking to people about the films they enjoy and making reccomendations. I suspect he knows the borrowers tastes as well as he knows the films.
I hope some of this helps,
Richard
[…] wrote a long piece partially about how newspapers might be able to save themselves, a while […]
thanks richard!
(Came here from Jessamyn’s blog…)
I’ve spent my professional career in teeny libraries–one public, one church, one academic–and I agree that community-building is an important function of libraries. And it is my own motivation for being a librarian. But I don’t think it is at the core of “what libraries are for,” because it ignores all the people who use libraries for purely solitary pursuits. One could argue that physically bringing those folks into the same space as others is de facto community-building–but the same argument works for, say, grocery stores.
I think public libraries exist to make sure that certain things are available to people who might not otherwise be able to afford them. (“Afford” covering time and energy as well as money). Information, art, and community are three of these things; I’m sure there are many others that people could think of. Taken together, I think “culture” is a good blanket label for them.
What libraries provide, then, is a mandala of culture, a microcosm of the “local” experience of life. People use libraries to put things into context: “Why am I doing this with my life?” and “What were the causes of the Civil War?” and “Which book/website/DVD do I want to read/browse/watch next?” and “Where is a good Thai restaurant?” are all variations of locating oneself within a particular time and place.
Which is why “give ’em what they want” and “give ’em what they need” will always be a false dichotomy for successful libraries. What libraries offer needs to be both relevant/desirable and accurate/meaningful. People know when they are being shortchanged, and will make their choices accordingly.
@mark: “I think public libraries exist to make sure that certain things are available to people who might not otherwise be able to afford them” …
I agree with you, but why should we care about that? i don’t mean that facetiously, I just mean that “making things available” is a thing you do for some other purpose. so, what is it? why is it important to make these things available? for free? what wrong with making people buy them? what’s wrong with accepting that some people can’t afford it and saying, well that’s too bad for them? I know there’s a moral reason, but most of society these days doesn’t seem to care much about that. so how do you convince the *haves* that giving others access to stuff is something they want to spend their donation/tax money on. what impact does that have on society? why does it make society better?
that’s the question I think needs to be answered if a little library like ours is going to make a successful case to the public that we ought to be supported.
why should we care about that? … what wrong with making people buy them? what’s wrong with accepting that some people can’t afford it and saying, well that’s too bad for them?
I’m not sure these are the right questions. Porn producers don’t worry about what’s wrong with people getting their own inspiration for orgasms–they have identified a felt need, filling that need makes them money, and so they go about their business. (I leave aside here the question of indie porn folks who do see something wrong with the mainstream porn-consuming impulse and so go about their business with principled as well as economic motivations).
One complication is that librarians and board members tend to think of themselves as the producers of libraries…but in a real sense, we’re not. We’re more like the directors, actors, and PR folks. The producers are the funders. For public libraries, that generally means various levels of government, plus some private fundraising.
Which leads to your comment: that’s the question I think needs to be answered if a little library like ours is going to make a successful case to the public that we ought to be supported. My first reaction is that once you reach the point of having to make a case for your existence, it’s a lost cause. It’s nigh impossible to induce a felt need in people from scratch.
Happily, most libraries don’t need to convince the public that they should exist. The two cases that usually need to be made are “this is the level of service the library should provide” and “funders should be willing to provide the amount of money needed for this level of service.”
But. And this is a big “but.” In practical terms, making these cases to the public is only useful insofar as it results in pressure on the funders. In other words, public support is a tactic in making the case to funders, not a goal in and of itself. (In the same way that making high-selling porn is of interest to directors, actors, and PR folks because it means the money will be available for the producers to greenlight more porn).
I know, I know, that sounds horrible. But it’s the gut-check, “why do we care” truth.
This is why my core justification for libraries is less “make stuff available for free” per se, and more about empowering people to put things in context. It is a morally fine thing to do that, to be sure. But at the existential level, what librarians are “selling” is a sense of personal location that includes the library. (Which entails the availability of information, art, community, etc.).
What exactly does that mean? Or: why should the *haves* care whether the *have nots* share this particular location with them? The pragmatic answer is usually that lowering barriers to participation in society is beneficial in two very different ways. First, because the likelihood that good new ideas and advances will arise is greater when you don’t restrict the pool of people with the resources necessary to have/achieve them. Second, because the likelihood that some people will gather together to disrupt society is lower when you don’t increase the pool of people who are at functionally fatal competitive disadvantage.
The *haves* benefit by monetizing the new ideas and advances (they have most of the capital, after all) and protect their profits by maintaining the status quo in a peaceable way. The *have nots* benefit from having greater opportunities than they would in a more completely privatized system. Funders generally are (or represent the interests of) the *haves*, so they are more secure in their positions when the libraries and public schools and recreation leagues and such are strong.
So: the felt need that libraries are serving is self-interest, or, helping people have a stable context within which to live.
Disclaimer: I don’t necessarily find this line of arguing palatable in any moral or just sense. You did specify that you wanted pragmatics that applied under current conditions.
“My first reaction is that once you reach the point of having to make a case for your existence, it’s a lost cause. It’s nigh impossible to induce a felt need in people from scratch.”
i hope, for the sake of the long-term viability of the atwater library, that you are wrong there.
“So: the felt need that libraries are serving is self-interest, or, helping people have a stable context within which to live.”
Right … and having stable contexts for people to live is good for everyone, because it makes by and large for a stable society. in a diverse city like montreal that’s important; because if there people don’t live in stable contexts, then you get riots etc.
so, i’d argue that a compelling case to society at large for supporting a library like ours (where the donors are not typically the users), is that the work we do to give a public space for immigrants, students, the elderly etc is actually an important part of keeping the city stable. that anyone can come, read, learn, access the web etc in our library means that people who might otherwise be at loose ends in fact get grounded to a space, a community, our library, int he heart of an odd intersection of the city. now that’s stretching surely our role, but I bet you’ll find that areas with really vibrant & healthy public libraries have lower crime rates etc. than similar areas without. so I bet there is a connection.
“Disclaimer: I don’t necessarily find this line of arguing palatable in any moral or just sense. You did specify that you wanted pragmatics that applied under current conditions.”
I am having a bit of a strange personal God is Dead experience at the moment, and I’ve been thinking a lot about this particular question … but that’s for another post.
> the work we do to give a public space for immigrants, students, the elderly etc is actually an important part of keeping the city stable
that’s close, but not quite right to me. stability? i don’t know that libraries stabilize per se. i think it’s more “social cohesion” than stability…
well, what’s so great about “social cohesion”? or put another way, what’s wrong with living in a city that’s got no social cohesion?
i have lived in both types of cities (those with, and without social cohesion) and both were equally stable, except i was much happier in cities where i felt as part of a local community. so i suppose it’s a happiness thing. social cohesion breeds happiness in the participating individuals (participating in those activities which promote SC), which may (or may not) permeate outwards and create indirect (and positively reinforcing) benefits to the rest of the community. libraries are one of these SC anchors.
gah. you’re breaking my theory! (tho i guess the definition of stable is up for debate)….
use social harmony then. good middle ground word.
i hope, for the sake of the long-term viability of the atwater library, that you are wrong there.
Oh dear. I hope I’m wrong, too.
so, i’d argue that a compelling case to society at large for supporting a library like ours (where the donors are not typically the users),
I’m not familiar with your situation (clearly), but it sounds like you might want to be investigating the feasibility of making changes to your funding model? If you are currently relying on a donor base that is in danger of drying up.
is that the work we do to give a public space for immigrants, students, the elderly etc is actually an important part of keeping the city stable.
That sounds right to me.
I think there’s also an efficiency argument to be made: Instead of running to one place for computer classes, another place for job hunting resources, yet another for early childhood literacy support, etc., people can just come to the library. In theory, that saves money (fewer locations to fund) and increases return on investment (easier to match services with target service populations).
I bet you’ll find that areas with really vibrant & healthy public libraries have lower crime rates etc. than similar areas without. so I bet there is a connection.
I have seen studies correlating strong public libraries with healthy local economies, property values, etc. I’m sorry that I don’t have citations off the top of my head, though.
@Mat: use social harmony then. good middle ground word.
Yeah, “cohesion” and “not antagonistic” are not exactly the same thing.
Hugh,
I lent you my collection of ‘big jugs’ magazines at Xmas. You said you needed them for a study. Is this study complete & may I have them back?
Andrew you can have big jugs back.
Just came in on a mailing list…
“An Indiana University report has confirmed the economic value of the public libraries: in Indiana, a total market value of goods and services estimated at $629.9 million and a return of $2.38 on each dollar of investment. The November report, by the Indiana Business Research Center at IU’s Kelley School of Business, concludes that public libraries are a good value, serving as ‘an important channel for literacy, education, and information.'”
http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/studies/EconomicImpactOfLibraries_2007.pdf
thanks mark, that’s a neat looking doc. looking forward to reading in detail.
I’m new to your blog, and just ran across this post. It’s brilliant. In so many ways. First, my boss (I’m in marketing) preaches that marketing is always and only about knowing “why you’re in the market and for whom.” I like the porn analogy if only because people never get the “why and for whom” adage unless you contextualize it. People always understand porn.
And libraries. I love and honour them. They took care of me when I was young. They tutored me, mentored me, gave me inspiration, music, design, typography, a place to go, and they covered for me when I had to be somewhere else. I think that, in essence, is what the comments here indicate: libraries provide social support and inspiration in the broadest, deepest, and most significant ways possible. They instil respect and reverence and democracy. A library is the power and democracy of language made manifest in tangible form.
Well done.
thanks mary!
[…] Shared hughmcguire.net · defining what you are for (just like porn). […]