Not the best choice of comparisons.
Among the uses I've made of newspaper runs over the years is one where I
assembled complete broadcast lists for both the New York Philharmonic
(including those before the mergers) and the Chicago Sympony Orchestras
(which each has yet to update and publish). They include the station and/or
network (Chicago had a midwestern one for a while), mono or stereo, a
breakdown of each program, how much was broadcast, etc. I couldn't have
done it without the daily papers.
I've also used them extensively to track the daily performance schedule and
occassional reviews of a touring opera company, performing in English.
In teh last case, I wish I had access to the papers, not the fils, to get
more useable images of the publicity pgotos and ads. I've yet to locate a
press kit with the pre-halftoned photos.
---- Original Message -----
From: "T. Anderson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Long-term/preservation audio
> > In that case, there is no resolution. I hope that criteria can be
> > established so that we are not "arbitrary". I have no hope that we can
> > all-inclusive.
> Well, social scientists use "sampling" as a valid means of representing
> the population. As long as it's a random sample, one can generalize
> For example, saving **every** newspaper in the U.S. probably isn't
> necessary. But saving every third day might be 99% as useful, for
> historians in the future.
> At a certain point you get diminishing returns, and you want a certain
> minimum "sample size."
> But if, by "arbitrary" it is meant "random (and thus representative),"
> then a cost-effective middle-ground can be reached. :)