Another book review section gone

Critical Mass, the blog of the National Book Critics Circle (of which I am a member), reports that the Atlanta Journal Constitution has eliminated its book editor position, possibly signaling the end of their independent book coverage.

What often happens in situations like this is that paper will continue a modest amount of coverage with wire stories or reviews pulled from other papers like the New York Times. Either that, or sometimes they just stop writing about books altogether.

Whenever newspapers make decisions like this, it always strikes me as being not only penurious, but short-sighted. Even if the powers-that-be don't believe that coverage of literature is worthwhile as a public service, you would think they would support it as an investment in their own future profits.

If newspapers don't help to promote a culture of reading, who do they think is going to read newspapers in the future? On the other hand, by fostering and encouraging a love and respect for reading, they're creating additional consumers for their product.

People buy the newspaper for the sports section, comics, horoscopes and Dear Abby. They don't buy the paper for the editorials, the international reporting or the book reviews. But cultural coverage, like international reporting and editorials, is still a valuable part of the product that newspapers provide.

Most newspapers generate significant revenues and many are quite profitable. Yet somehow too many of them can't seem to devote even a couple of pages to reviews of books. And that's a damn shame.

Comments

[patti abbott]

This is what happened with the Detroit Free Press and the single page itself is almost impossible to find, stuck at the end of a section you wouldn't think to look in and no entry in the index on the front page.
Horrible.

[Tim Maleeny]

The mass exodus from newspapers to getting news, reviews and information online is no longer isolated to young readers because the newspapers themselves are culpable in their own demise, giving people less original content, fewer new voices, and moving perversely into the business of "linking" to someone else's story.

[Roddy Reta]

It's easy to focus on the negative, but let's not forget the virtual explosion of quality websites, blogs, and podcasts devoted to fiction.

In my opinion, these web-based resources are far superior to any book review section I ever remember reading in my youth.

[David J. Montgomery]

I think you're talking about two different things, Roddy. Sure, it's good that there is coverage devoted to books on the internet. But that doesn't mean it's not bad that the print coverage is drying up. I don't think the two are substitute goods.

There are significant differences in both quality and readership between web-based reviews and what you'd find in a good newspaper section.

The readership of a site like this one (which admittedly isn't particularly popular) is only a tiny fraction of what I get when I write for a newspaper.

There's also that fact that most internet writing doesn't pay, which brings in several additional considerations.

I just don't see any positive aspects to newspapers cutting their book coverage.

[karen terry]

I live in Albany GA and I would buy the Atlanta Const. every Sunday. We are no longer getting the paper, because the journal says that they weren't making enough money here. I guess we do not read in South GA. It is sad that they are getting rid of their book review section. I use to read it all the time because I am a reader.