Just a quicky as I am off out this morning, Susan, you asked how our reading the papers had changed. I , like you, have read a newspaper from a child, and like you, had it spread on the floor as the sheets of paper were too big for me to hold, from the age of about 12. I also had problems with our dog who would come and lay down to help me read usually on the paper!!
The only difference I can say is in the days of my childhood I only read about Art, book reviews and the general news on the front page. Now I read the whole paper especially the political comments, and the finance page as well, I have always enjoyed reading the paper and hope they do not disappear. Those of us of a certain age who are not completely wedded to our computers still like the rustle and feel of the paper in our hands,- and it is so useful for clearing up the cat and other jobs!!!!!
Liz, windows, too. Nothing like a loosely wadded page of newsprint to clean a streaky window. But yes, all those other adult reading pursuits, too. We have a long and affectionate association with print-on-paper. That's just one of the reasons we don't want newspapers to go away.
On another media subject: We watch BBC World New quite often. It gives us the global news when our native media get myopic and Trump-obsessed. And BBC America is far more balanced than any of our networks.
My experience with newspapers is perhaps radically different from most. I grew up in a household that never subscribed to a newspaper. In my mother's opinion, "If you have time to read (anything) you have time to help with more chores."
Most of the other households on the military bases didn't subscribe either. There were military "sheets," that had various news and announcements about the base and deployment of ships.
My first real introduction was in college in the bay area. Each dorm received two copies of the "San Francisco Chronicle" that were kept in the dorm reading room. My classmates crowded around to read each day's delivery.
As a young graduate, I did not have money for what I felt was the luxury of a daily subscription. I had education loans to pay.
My first real experience with a subscription is when I met my husband. He not only subscribed, but got up early enough to read the newspaper before work. And when I met his parents, so did they!
We always had a newspaper; I admit, since I had an early arrival at work (usually around 7am to his 9am) I never got in the habit of reading the morning paper. I usually had a commute, and listened to news on the radio. Je always talked about the news at dinner. He excelled at bringing the news to life. To this day, neither my daughter nor I read a newspaper.
Back when you and I were growing up, Georgeann, there were probably large community clusters (mainly rural?) where the focus was on the day-to-day business of making a life. Sometimes this was religious (e.g. Amish), sometimes geographic (hollers in KY, W.Va). Whether it was intentional or circumstantial, those families just didn't look beyond the horizon. That's hugely altered now, don't you think? With ubiquity of modern media, people really have to be *intentional* about keeping the news out.
IMO, HCR is a reliable guide to what's politically important. I like the ways she ties the present to the past--which we seem to be inevitably reliving.
I started out reading the Sunday comics in our daily newspaper that my parents subscribed to - I think it was the Detroit Free Press. But we also got The Daily Tribune which was JUST for our suburb (Royal Oak). I wasn't that interested although I remember looking at headlines. I was born allergic to almost everything and spent an hour or so EVERY Saturday from the time I was five until I was sixteen at my pediatricians office getting shots to help immunize me to stuff I was allergic to.
My Mother and I always had to wait for half an hour in the doctor's office, after the shot, in case I had a reaction to it. (They worked eventually. I remain allergic to only a couple things like pollen and dust). They had children's books available (of course) but - for whatever reason - the New Yorker was also available (for the adults one would assume).
I wasn't interested in the children's books so I started reading The New Yorker at five or six years old. I discovered James Thurber (fantastic humorist) and graduated to his actual books. I graduated to a lot of other books too. AND Life Magazine and Newsweek and the Saturday Evening Post. My Dad subscribed to a LOT of magazines. I read those faithfully every week.
Since the beginning of the digital age I have subscribed to a number of newspapers online and have read more newspaper news than I ever did actual printed newspapers.
I wonder how many of us learned to read from the comics--LOTS, I'll bet. How lucky for you that your allergies led you to Thurber! And that your family read those wonderful magazines of the 40s and 50s. The SEP was remarkable as a short story market: many excellent writers (and readers) got their start there. My brother and I were talking the other day about Tugboat Annie. Remember her? Those stories became a movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tugboat_Annie
The unsinkable Tugboat Annie. Yes I loved the Sunday comics. Do you remember Prince Valiant? My Dad and I both loved that series. It was interesting to me because there was a Native American woman - his wife I think - included - and Valiant was a Viking. At that point most people thought the first Europeans to reach what is now America were Columbus. SINCE then we know various Vikings wound up here *1,000* years ago. How the original author/artist of Prince Valiant knew that, I don't know. But it was interesting.
Oh, Prince Valiant! His history might have been a little prescient, but I loved his hair style. I have a photo of myself, about 6 or 7, wearing a Prince Valiant bob. It still makes me smile.
You might be interested in this: ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Valiant I had no idea!
I read the Wikipedia piece - I didn't start looking at it (reading it) until the 1950's, so I guess I missed a lot of Prince Valiant's early history. Obviously I got the relationship of the Native woman to Valiant wrong. I remember distinctly several strips with her sitting in a canoe (or small boat??) WITH Valiant and at least one of his loyal men. Maybe it was the loyal man who married the Native woman. Or I'm wrong altogether. Sigh. And I stopped reading it at some point so I missed most of the LATER history.
I was just very interested in the relationship of Native Americans and what were more or less Vikings.
SINCE Prince Valiant piqued my interest, I've studied a lot of Native American history (along with a ton of other history). They found the remains of a Viking "Settlement" (they don't call it a "village") in Newfoundland (Canada) that is about 1,000 years old.
I encountered several intriguing THEORIES about said Vikings. There are SOME historians who believe those Vikings never made it BACK to Europe, but they began exploring and wandered SOUTH. Apparently there is some evidence (disputed, but so be it) that at least some of them wound up exploring along the Mississippi River. SOME of the "evidence" that has been offered is the fact that there is a tribe of Native Americans called the "Mandan" who were mainly on the Missouri River in North Dakota (the Missouri flows into the Mississippi) who had a history of BLUE EYES.
Oddly enough I've read that Crazy Horse had blue eyes.
And next I'd like to talk about Cahokia. And about the very advanced Native people who settled Cahokia and other places around that area into Georgia and the Southeast and why they disappeared. Sadly. I'm kidding (about talking about them).
We in the UK had actual comics for kids, The Lion The Girl The Dandy and others. We also had in the Lion, stories of Vikings- Cheeky things raided our lands, though recent discoveries suggest it was more of a slow take over with trade and settlement.
I loved them, The girl was all about girls at boarding schools who had adventures and foiled robbers etc The Dandy had Desperate Dan who ate huge cow pies with horns sticking out and the Lion was full of adventure stories all drawn in wonderful colour. I used to swap with the boy next door. When I was older there were Teenage mags like Honey which was fashion and how to date (them) boys. So much fun, Apart from Owl I don't think there is anything like them now.
Yes. I use Wikipedia all the time. Thanks for the link. I've read most of that over the decades. The Kensington Runestone caused a great flutter, but even when I read about it, not long after it was "discovered," it was being disputed. Most of the theories of Viking expansion in North America have been roundly disputed. Considering the WAY most archaeology works (finding stuff long buried) and considering the AMOUNT of land involved (all of North and South America in this case), the chances of them MISSING something significant are enormous. I just find it interesting...
I remember getting two newspapers a day when I was a kid, morning and evening. And on the weekends my dad would bring home one of the "big" newspapers with all the pages of colored cartoons. Boy did we love that! As I entered school, we frequently were asked to bring in current event articles. Now there are many people who have never even seen a print newspaper. Our local papers have gotten very pricey and decreased drastically in size. I don't see paper deliveries anymore in my neighborhood and am not sure I have even seen at least the Sunday papers on sale at the grocery store. I also don't see boxes where papers can be bought. While I know that editorializing was always a part of the news, it all seems so slanted now. News stations seem to espouse a particular point of view. Most are owned by large corporations and the way the news is transmitted has to "toe the line" or jobs are lost. I find myself spending more and more time on Snopes double checking things.
Oh, Linda, I agree with the need for a fact-checker! We used to trust print sources; now we feel the need to double/triple-check everything. But I often wonder: were we just as often misled by the print sources we relied on back then? I grew up in the 1950s when all the women's magazines were about women staying home (moms didn't work, after the war), racial segregation, marriage as a priority, church, etc.
But at least we knew what was going on in our communities. That was important then, and even more important now.
And the teen magazines were about makeup, hair, and how to snare a boy! Of course Charlie Kirk yesterday told young women to go to college to get their Mrs degrees!
I saw that! (Mrs.) And had the same thought. Retro 50s, back in the kitchen, girls!
The newspapers also taught us how to read, and showed us that there were worlds outside our own. And that led to books and even wider worlds. Unfortunately, many readers now don't see to graduate from the internet to books with ideas.
Hi gang,
Just a quicky as I am off out this morning, Susan, you asked how our reading the papers had changed. I , like you, have read a newspaper from a child, and like you, had it spread on the floor as the sheets of paper were too big for me to hold, from the age of about 12. I also had problems with our dog who would come and lay down to help me read usually on the paper!!
The only difference I can say is in the days of my childhood I only read about Art, book reviews and the general news on the front page. Now I read the whole paper especially the political comments, and the finance page as well, I have always enjoyed reading the paper and hope they do not disappear. Those of us of a certain age who are not completely wedded to our computers still like the rustle and feel of the paper in our hands,- and it is so useful for clearing up the cat and other jobs!!!!!
Liz, windows, too. Nothing like a loosely wadded page of newsprint to clean a streaky window. But yes, all those other adult reading pursuits, too. We have a long and affectionate association with print-on-paper. That's just one of the reasons we don't want newspapers to go away.
On another media subject: We watch BBC World New quite often. It gives us the global news when our native media get myopic and Trump-obsessed. And BBC America is far more balanced than any of our networks.
My experience with newspapers is perhaps radically different from most. I grew up in a household that never subscribed to a newspaper. In my mother's opinion, "If you have time to read (anything) you have time to help with more chores."
Most of the other households on the military bases didn't subscribe either. There were military "sheets," that had various news and announcements about the base and deployment of ships.
My first real introduction was in college in the bay area. Each dorm received two copies of the "San Francisco Chronicle" that were kept in the dorm reading room. My classmates crowded around to read each day's delivery.
As a young graduate, I did not have money for what I felt was the luxury of a daily subscription. I had education loans to pay.
My first real experience with a subscription is when I met my husband. He not only subscribed, but got up early enough to read the newspaper before work. And when I met his parents, so did they!
We always had a newspaper; I admit, since I had an early arrival at work (usually around 7am to his 9am) I never got in the habit of reading the morning paper. I usually had a commute, and listened to news on the radio. Je always talked about the news at dinner. He excelled at bringing the news to life. To this day, neither my daughter nor I read a newspaper.
I often go online and listen to NPR.
I follow blogs like Heather Cox Richardson/
Back when you and I were growing up, Georgeann, there were probably large community clusters (mainly rural?) where the focus was on the day-to-day business of making a life. Sometimes this was religious (e.g. Amish), sometimes geographic (hollers in KY, W.Va). Whether it was intentional or circumstantial, those families just didn't look beyond the horizon. That's hugely altered now, don't you think? With ubiquity of modern media, people really have to be *intentional* about keeping the news out.
IMO, HCR is a reliable guide to what's politically important. I like the ways she ties the present to the past--which we seem to be inevitably reliving.
I started out reading the Sunday comics in our daily newspaper that my parents subscribed to - I think it was the Detroit Free Press. But we also got The Daily Tribune which was JUST for our suburb (Royal Oak). I wasn't that interested although I remember looking at headlines. I was born allergic to almost everything and spent an hour or so EVERY Saturday from the time I was five until I was sixteen at my pediatricians office getting shots to help immunize me to stuff I was allergic to.
My Mother and I always had to wait for half an hour in the doctor's office, after the shot, in case I had a reaction to it. (They worked eventually. I remain allergic to only a couple things like pollen and dust). They had children's books available (of course) but - for whatever reason - the New Yorker was also available (for the adults one would assume).
I wasn't interested in the children's books so I started reading The New Yorker at five or six years old. I discovered James Thurber (fantastic humorist) and graduated to his actual books. I graduated to a lot of other books too. AND Life Magazine and Newsweek and the Saturday Evening Post. My Dad subscribed to a LOT of magazines. I read those faithfully every week.
Since the beginning of the digital age I have subscribed to a number of newspapers online and have read more newspaper news than I ever did actual printed newspapers.
I wonder how many of us learned to read from the comics--LOTS, I'll bet. How lucky for you that your allergies led you to Thurber! And that your family read those wonderful magazines of the 40s and 50s. The SEP was remarkable as a short story market: many excellent writers (and readers) got their start there. My brother and I were talking the other day about Tugboat Annie. Remember her? Those stories became a movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tugboat_Annie
The unsinkable Tugboat Annie. Yes I loved the Sunday comics. Do you remember Prince Valiant? My Dad and I both loved that series. It was interesting to me because there was a Native American woman - his wife I think - included - and Valiant was a Viking. At that point most people thought the first Europeans to reach what is now America were Columbus. SINCE then we know various Vikings wound up here *1,000* years ago. How the original author/artist of Prince Valiant knew that, I don't know. But it was interesting.
Oh, Prince Valiant! His history might have been a little prescient, but I loved his hair style. I have a photo of myself, about 6 or 7, wearing a Prince Valiant bob. It still makes me smile.
You might be interested in this: ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Valiant I had no idea!
I read the Wikipedia piece - I didn't start looking at it (reading it) until the 1950's, so I guess I missed a lot of Prince Valiant's early history. Obviously I got the relationship of the Native woman to Valiant wrong. I remember distinctly several strips with her sitting in a canoe (or small boat??) WITH Valiant and at least one of his loyal men. Maybe it was the loyal man who married the Native woman. Or I'm wrong altogether. Sigh. And I stopped reading it at some point so I missed most of the LATER history.
I was just very interested in the relationship of Native Americans and what were more or less Vikings.
SINCE Prince Valiant piqued my interest, I've studied a lot of Native American history (along with a ton of other history). They found the remains of a Viking "Settlement" (they don't call it a "village") in Newfoundland (Canada) that is about 1,000 years old.
I encountered several intriguing THEORIES about said Vikings. There are SOME historians who believe those Vikings never made it BACK to Europe, but they began exploring and wandered SOUTH. Apparently there is some evidence (disputed, but so be it) that at least some of them wound up exploring along the Mississippi River. SOME of the "evidence" that has been offered is the fact that there is a tribe of Native Americans called the "Mandan" who were mainly on the Missouri River in North Dakota (the Missouri flows into the Mississippi) who had a history of BLUE EYES.
Oddly enough I've read that Crazy Horse had blue eyes.
And next I'd like to talk about Cahokia. And about the very advanced Native people who settled Cahokia and other places around that area into Georgia and the Southeast and why they disappeared. Sadly. I'm kidding (about talking about them).
I had to pop in here
We in the UK had actual comics for kids, The Lion The Girl The Dandy and others. We also had in the Lion, stories of Vikings- Cheeky things raided our lands, though recent discoveries suggest it was more of a slow take over with trade and settlement.
I loved them, The girl was all about girls at boarding schools who had adventures and foiled robbers etc The Dandy had Desperate Dan who ate huge cow pies with horns sticking out and the Lion was full of adventure stories all drawn in wonderful colour. I used to swap with the boy next door. When I was older there were Teenage mags like Honey which was fashion and how to date (them) boys. So much fun, Apart from Owl I don't think there is anything like them now.
More here on that topic, Carolyn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_colonization_of_North_America (I've been a Wikipedia supporter for over a decade; I tend to go there first for background research.)
Yes. I use Wikipedia all the time. Thanks for the link. I've read most of that over the decades. The Kensington Runestone caused a great flutter, but even when I read about it, not long after it was "discovered," it was being disputed. Most of the theories of Viking expansion in North America have been roundly disputed. Considering the WAY most archaeology works (finding stuff long buried) and considering the AMOUNT of land involved (all of North and South America in this case), the chances of them MISSING something significant are enormous. I just find it interesting...
I remember getting two newspapers a day when I was a kid, morning and evening. And on the weekends my dad would bring home one of the "big" newspapers with all the pages of colored cartoons. Boy did we love that! As I entered school, we frequently were asked to bring in current event articles. Now there are many people who have never even seen a print newspaper. Our local papers have gotten very pricey and decreased drastically in size. I don't see paper deliveries anymore in my neighborhood and am not sure I have even seen at least the Sunday papers on sale at the grocery store. I also don't see boxes where papers can be bought. While I know that editorializing was always a part of the news, it all seems so slanted now. News stations seem to espouse a particular point of view. Most are owned by large corporations and the way the news is transmitted has to "toe the line" or jobs are lost. I find myself spending more and more time on Snopes double checking things.
Oh, Linda, I agree with the need for a fact-checker! We used to trust print sources; now we feel the need to double/triple-check everything. But I often wonder: were we just as often misled by the print sources we relied on back then? I grew up in the 1950s when all the women's magazines were about women staying home (moms didn't work, after the war), racial segregation, marriage as a priority, church, etc.
But at least we knew what was going on in our communities. That was important then, and even more important now.
And the teen magazines were about makeup, hair, and how to snare a boy! Of course Charlie Kirk yesterday told young women to go to college to get their Mrs degrees!
I saw that! (Mrs.) And had the same thought. Retro 50s, back in the kitchen, girls!
The newspapers also taught us how to read, and showed us that there were worlds outside our own. And that led to books and even wider worlds. Unfortunately, many readers now don't see to graduate from the internet to books with ideas.