The printed page is the life of public discussion at any institution. For all the revolutionary impact of the Internet, only The Cavalier Daily and The Declaration can truly steer the common conversation of the whole University. Stacks all over Grounds give students the easy opportunity to read either paper; the community shares no such common resource online, where fragments of University life converge separately. Yet this limited scope of discussion - one daily newspaper and a weekly satirical publication - has bred apathy and disengagement. To reinvigorate the spirit of public debate, the University should revive a fine American tradition: the pamphlet.
The difficulties of running a regular newspaper are evident, beginning with cost, organization and coverage. Competitors to The Cavalier Daily, attempting to give students a diversity of perspectives on news and opinion, have risen and fallen, all hamstrung by the instability of so large a project as a newspaper. Still, there is no reason why these projects should be bound to the newspaper model. Since before the Revolutionary War era, public debate has been expressed in short, cheaply-published, often crude booklets. A diverse range was disseminated of varying quality, length and concern, appealing to readers of equally diverse intellect and interests. Pamphlets were passed among friends and often annotated in the margins. Above all, this publishing phenomenon stirred the pot of intellectual ferment during that time.
Although newspapers have become the dominant printed form of news, the popularity and ubiquity of blogs prove the continuing appeal of the conversational free-for-all, where central moderation is a light factor, if even present. The decline of newspapers allude to public dissatisfaction with its enervating control of the public discourse. At the University especially, pamphlets hold the capacity to restore debate to the student body directly. If a myriad of publications confronted students at locations where now only The Cavalier Daily and The Declaration rest, readers could then exercise the most basic form of editorial control: picking from a range worthy of being called a choice. Committed, skilled writers would be able to strike out alone, or in partnership, and so gain a readership not available to newspapers that must vary their type of writer and choice of topic.
Such a situation could energize existing newspapers, as well. As more people became drawn into writing, and into public debate more generally, the pool of writers available would grow. Similarly, as the newly multiplied and varied papers criticized and referenced one another, readership would grow too. This phenomenon is visible in the wild success of political blogs, whose frequent 'wars' drive up readership and engagement for all involved.
The example of blogging raises the question: why printed pamphlets? The answer lies in the choice involved in the Internet; a blog must be sought out and discovered by a large critical mass of students before it can truly become part of the University culture and the University debate. When someone sees The Cavalier Daily, or any newspaper, they are not given a choice over what they will see. Debate can only take place between those who make their presence known. Pamphlets, like the newspapers, insist on their presence.
It should be understood that pamphlets, like the Yellow Journalism of William Randolph Hearst, are prone by nature to be sensationalist, even offensive. To a holistic eye, this is part of their charm. The difficulty of weighing claims and arguments offered in extreme terms - the method Thomas Paine perfected - will teach students to critically approach all claims made by the media and to separate the essentials of an argument from its tone and phrasing.
The irregularity of pamphlets would seem to foreclose the possibility of advertising, but support and funding are available elsewhere. From the University Democrats to the Burke Society and the Classical Liberal Roundtable, existing groups are ready and willing to take advantage of an available printing system that does not entail regular commitment. If these student groups wished to publish pamphlets, they could raise the costs of a small, cheap print run from their memberships. Such a request would, if met, lead each membership to demand excellence or even to volunteer involvement. Many of these groups have already proven able to attract outside investment and could conceivably do so again.
It is with printing facilities that the University administration or Student Council could be most helpful. What prevents many groups from organizing such basic projects at present is uncertainty about the arrangements, and the cost and availability of printing and distribution. If all groups, in their beginnings, were made aware of the full process of printing and encouraged to take up the practice, the intellectual environment of the University as a whole would be improved greatly.
Roraig Finney is a Viewpoint writer for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 2 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
