From: Walter Cybulski <[log in to unmask]>
>If you want some real answers about newspaper preservation, the
last place you should look for guidance is in the work of a hack
fiction writer like Baker. Check out the work that's been done by
the United States Newspaper Program. If you are good at research
and check out Baker's "extensive" bibliography, you will find
yourself wondering why he left out significant information simply
because what others said did not support his crackpot argument.
Baker is in microfilm denial and seems to think that one page that
will not break when folded somehow magically represents millions
of pages of newspapers and books that broke when handled. Double
Fooled is not a work of scholarship to be relied on. He's
probably got you believing every reel of microfilm is a
deteriorating compilation of mistakes. Nothing could be further
from the truth.
May I implore interested parties to read "Double Fold" and make up
their own minds. I have read some of the criticisms of Baker,
which are certainly valid, but they do not negate his essential
point, which is that microfilm is a poor substitute for the real
thing in the specific case of newspapers. Countless bound volumes
of antique newspapers were thrown out and "pulped" in favor of
the "glories" of microfilm in the '40s and beyond. The result of
this carelessness on the part of libraries and archives is that
original copies of newspapers are now very rare or nonexistent.
Also note that much of the woodpulp that the experts predicted
would "turn to dust" 25 years ago is still intact.
Sent via the EV1 webmail system at mail.ev1.net