PUBLIC LIBRARIES ARE UN-AMERICAN
Jul. 1st, 2010 08:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM: Anna Daviantes of Fox News Chicago delivers some hard-hitting journalism that asks the important question: why are we spending millions of tax dollars on libraries when we could be spending it on important stuff? Like schools! Which also have libraries!
Or something. It’s a pretty odd article that seems more like an audition tape for Fox & Friends. This is as relevatory as it gets:
Conclusion: ... well, I’m not sure, really. Except that Anna Daviantes has it in for libraries. Or thinks her station’s demographic does.
To be fair, it’s not the topic that’s the problem. Daviantes is hardly the first person to ask if libraries serve a negligible purpose in a world where we have Borders, Amazon.com and Google. It’s a question that usually comes up when city/state budgets are tight, and it’s a question worth asking, if only to get people thinking about just what a library is for, and why we have them in the first place – is it just a govt building full of books, or is it something more to the community it serves?
(Apart from giving the FBI a way to find suspicious persons, I mean.)
For me, the answer is fairly obvious – yes, we need libaries, for several reasons:
1. Not everyone has Internet access.
2. Not everyone who has Internet access knows how to find specific information that is also reliable.
3. Not everyone can afford to buy books (especially if they’re specialized reference books or textbooks).
4. Not all books are available online, either in print or digital form – millions of books are out of print.
5. The same goes for articles in newspapers and periodicals that haven’t been digitalized.
6. Universal access is important because society benefits from everyone having access to knowledge and culture, not just the ones who can afford to pay for it. This is especially applicable in societies where television journalism is this bad.
Also, librarians kick ass. Sometimes literally.
Observe.
Look it up,
This is dF
Or something. It’s a pretty odd article that seems more like an audition tape for Fox & Friends. This is as relevatory as it gets:
... Keeping libraries running costs big money. In Chicago, the city pumps $120 million a year into them. In fact, a full 2.5 percent of our yearly property taxes go to fund them.
That's money that could go elsewhere – like for schools, the CTA, police or pensions
One of the nation's biggest and busiest libraries is the $144-million Harold Washington Library in the Loop. It boasts a staggering 5,000 visitors a day!.
So we decided to check it out. We used an undercover camera to see how many people used the library and what were they doing.
In an hour, we counted about 300 visitors. Most of them were using the free internet. The bookshelves? Not so much.
That's money that could go elsewhere – like for schools, the CTA, police or pensions
One of the nation's biggest and busiest libraries is the $144-million Harold Washington Library in the Loop. It boasts a staggering 5,000 visitors a day!.
So we decided to check it out. We used an undercover camera to see how many people used the library and what were they doing.
In an hour, we counted about 300 visitors. Most of them were using the free internet. The bookshelves? Not so much.
Conclusion: ... well, I’m not sure, really. Except that Anna Daviantes has it in for libraries. Or thinks her station’s demographic does.
To be fair, it’s not the topic that’s the problem. Daviantes is hardly the first person to ask if libraries serve a negligible purpose in a world where we have Borders, Amazon.com and Google. It’s a question that usually comes up when city/state budgets are tight, and it’s a question worth asking, if only to get people thinking about just what a library is for, and why we have them in the first place – is it just a govt building full of books, or is it something more to the community it serves?
(Apart from giving the FBI a way to find suspicious persons, I mean.)
For me, the answer is fairly obvious – yes, we need libaries, for several reasons:
1. Not everyone has Internet access.
2. Not everyone who has Internet access knows how to find specific information that is also reliable.
3. Not everyone can afford to buy books (especially if they’re specialized reference books or textbooks).
4. Not all books are available online, either in print or digital form – millions of books are out of print.
5. The same goes for articles in newspapers and periodicals that haven’t been digitalized.
6. Universal access is important because society benefits from everyone having access to knowledge and culture, not just the ones who can afford to pay for it. This is especially applicable in societies where television journalism is this bad.
Also, librarians kick ass. Sometimes literally.
Observe.
Look it up,
This is dF
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
YOU don't know the Dewey Decimal System?!?!
on 2010-07-02 01:04 am (UTC)Honestly, what in the fuck is wrong with these people?