I have one question for non-newspaper readers: What's your alibi?
I hear, whaddaya know, that like researchers, you too are blaming those vogue, electronic thingamabobs (read: computers) for filching the time you would've, could've spent reading the paper. If that's the case, call yourself a cybersucker.
Sure, fear of responsibility has resulted in an all-too-common "I'm screwed therefore my parents are to blame" kind of phenomenon, but do researchers have to sink so low as to cast stones at some inanimate electronic device for the waning numbers of paper-reading youths?
But hey, the excuses hardly stop there. How about these classics:
"I don't read the paper 'cause it's filled with too much bad and tragic news."
My response: Your pessimistic attitude can't shield you from the truth. Think of it this way: The paper's filled mostly with good information that is there to help readers. Sometimes news is bad and tragic, but newspapers don't create the scenarios - they only report the reality.
So only oblivious souls, who feel that Earth is as pure as the heavens, could issue this tedious excuse.
"Events in the paper are a bunch of puzzling mumbo jumbo."
My response: That's a mind-boggler. Could it be that events appear puzzling because you haven't managed to keep yourself informed? It's a vicious cycle. Think about it.
"Stories in the dailies just don't interest me."
My response: Yeah? And those supermarket tabloid stories do?
"I have no time to read the paper."
My response: You must be approaching the paper as if it were a dreaded chore. Doesn't one usually use the same whine when it comes to, say, cleaning those dust-caked window screens?
EXCUSES aside, it can be downright dangerous - yes, dangerous - and embarrassing if you fail to at least skim the paper once a day.
Suppose you are in the midst of a political circus. Picture yourself being asked who's running for president in '96. If you haven't kept up, you might respond "Dick Morris and uh, Newt Gingrich." How embarrassing.
The dangerous part? Dick Morris or Newt as president? Yikes!
Or say you haul your butt to work and find it completely deserted. You stand there, dumbfounded, only to discover later that you were the sole ex-employee who hadn't examined the paper's front-page story, headlined, "Business suddenly shuts down."
The dangerous twist? Because you hadn't opened the paper, you are also unaware of other job opportunities plastered on the classified pages. You then may find yourself penniless and homeless, with a cardboard box as your comfy little condo. What's more, your neighbors circle you like a bunch of voracious barracudas.
Avoiding the paper could even be dangerous for shopaholics.
Picture these deranged souls, who, in missing an advertised one-day sale, now roam paradise with their hands in the air, wailing, "WHY? WHY?"
RETURNING to the aforementioned ABC report; it also declared that without paper-reading young folk, the outlook for the trade is bleak. Can you imagine the pure chaos that would ensue if the newspaper trade went extinct? Don't make me go there!
But wait a second. Isn't the Star-Bulletin now on-line? Ah, those maestros - well ahead of the game.
All right computer junkies, what's your alibi now?