Readership program is valuable
I completely disagree with Reid Buckley’s assessment of the College Readership Program. You can’t compare reading a newspaper online to reading a newspaper in the form of a newspaper just like you can’t compare doing readings online to reading them from a book. Being able to hold the paper is just one thing, but there is also different content in the online and print version of the newspaper. And some things are just clearer in the print form (pictures, diagrams, etc.). Try doing the New York Times crossword online; it just isn’t the same.
I consider online news to be a supplement to the print version not a replacement, and I am a huge fan of the CRP. I was happy when it was first tried out my freshman year, displeased when the trial program ended, and then happy once again when the program returned, so far for good. Furthermore, I find it incredibly ironic that this article was printed in the Campus Times, the most wasteful newspaper on campus. Don’t get me wrong I love reading the Campus Times every week. But way too many copies are printed. This is why they are strewn around until the next Thursday when the excessive stacks of new papers are distributed. Cutting printing of the CT in half or even by a third would be quite sustainable. It would encourage paper sharing, diminish waste, and, of course, use less paper. It is unnecessary to continue to print papers week after week that go unread. Similarly, if the SA wants to decrease the number of papers in the CRP, by all means. That too would encourage sharing and diminish waste. But eliminating is an unfair solution to a different problem.
Jason Scheff
Class of 2010
