red concave bar 1

Are we Collecting Again?

The pleasures of owning physical media have again caught our attention.  

                 Nolan

In 2015 this site offered a piece entitled “Are We Done Collecting?   It’s simple conclusion was that people would rather stream or rent media materials rather than own them. My impression is that in the last few years this has begun to change, as the technologies of music reproduction and film production have created more interest in younger consumers. The signs are decidedly mixed, but older means of capturing sight and sound seem to have found a lot of younger enthusiasts. Film preservation has become a cause that museums and Hollywood are rallying behind, aided by passionate cineastes in the thrall of directors like Brady Corbet or Yorgos Lanthimos, or Christopher Nolan, who keeps surprising viewers with epics like Oppenheimer. In addition, studio interest in their  own neglected back catalogues seems to have increased. Their indifference a few years ago reaped  a ton of bad publicity, with the result that new editions of old classics are now often restored on high resolution DVDs. The classics-centered Criterion Collection seems to be referenced everywhere now. Perhaps the relatively new Hollywood Museum on North Highland Avenue has also focused more attention on the physical aspects of filmmaking.

A few years ago 35-millmenter film seemed to be firmly in the rear-view mirror. But new applications for old color and aspect ratios have sparked a minor revival for the nearly moribund Eastman Kodak. Older directors Martin Scorsese and George Lucas have put their reputations on the line to support restoring films with new prints. While digital projectors still are the rule in theaters, productions again welcome the use of film during production before being transferred to a final digital print.

The same story of a partial turnaround applies to vinyl records, which are making a modest comeback. Streaming glitches and higher costs of monthly subscriptions have added value to owning the real thing. Based on record sales, in 2015 I predicted “a fading passion” for holding a physical copy of a performance. Now newer sales charts that show an uptick of interest by young collectors in these physical artifacts of music.

As well, storied brands of old audio and photo equipment from the 70s and 80s have also become a thing. Used audio stores could be lonely places for a few nostalgic old men. Now, some stores can hardly keep up with the demand for used audio amplifiers, some made over 50 years ago.  A restored off-the shelf Kenwood Amplifier from the early 70s can sell for as much as $4,000.

Perhaps living exclusively in the digital world of streaming has perhaps worn us out. Streaming offers something less than a “thing” that comes with a history and lovingly prepared liner notes. Taylor Swift enthusiasts famously want more than a digital file. And while most film buffs have no practical use for the 600-pound 70-mm IMAX print of Oppenheimer (2023), many want the Blu-ray equivalent.  Acquiring a sensibility that is distinctly theirs, young media consumers have also taken up the cause for once-esoteric phonograph cartridges, 4K restorations of films of 50s films, and the discovery of all-but-forgotten film formats like VistaVision, the format chosen by Bradley Corbet for his low-budget-high-impact feature, The Brutalist (2024).

red white blue bar

What Should You Pay for Accurate News?

                                A.I. Image

Junk news and clickbait may be free, but most reliable and credible news is not. Fake news exacts its own costs.

Access to real journalism is not free. There is a need to budget  for being a reasonably informed citizen of the United States. While libraries and occasional internet sites allow free access to good information about politics, medical research and important trends, a person has to work more to track it down. A decent library is the exception, but the desire for convenience means that we tend to curate our own collections of resources, unwittingly settling on sources that monetize their existence by using “news” as bait. “Paid” stories appearing on the fringes of news websites are the most obvious cases of pseudo journalism. The first “sponsored” listings on a Google search are an obvious example.  Some who have paid to have top billing may offer credible information. But their content is usually selling their own products or services.  Ideally, journalism serves the public interest with the best versions of the truth; junk news serves some private interest.

Information has value. Especially in these times we need to consider paying the researchers, authentic journalists and news aggregators who must make a living for their efforts. The last election suggests the cost to the republic when voting is effected by of a ton of paid advertising and misinformation. Elon Musk alone supported the GOP to the tune of nearly $300 million in the last election. That included a brazen public offer to pay for votes for Donald Trump. We know he contributed to a mountain of false claims delivered to people who apparently never bothered to check their veracity.

We pay an electricity provider for light. We should be willing to budget some money to pay for information that will bring hard truths out of the shade.

We need to budget for high-quality news.

A reasonable budget for high quality news and information probably starts at about $200 a month, or $2400 a year. That’s the cost of access to several reliable sources within the information society. Everyone’s interests and resources will vary. The list below is one suggestion of a good mix: not unreasonable for some family budgets, but not all. To be sure, “information” is not a typical item to fold into family expenses. And yet most of us can not function without expensive smart phones, cable access, and an internet platform. It is useful to remember that a chunk of family money goes to costly travel and entertainment, money that may be spent in a shortsighted exchange of the pleasant for the essential.

Here’s one reasonable breakdown of some useful expenses, which will vary somewhat based on a family’s interests.

AP

-Free and worthwhile: Library sources, and digital forms of Wikipedia, The Associated Press, and opinion websites like Vox or Politico. Scholastic for children offers a host of age-graded magazines on a range of national and international topics. Many are available in school libraries.

– A good newspaper, about $35 a week for hard copies . There is a good reason to  have physical a copy of a newspaper sitting on the family breakfast table. A parent can do no better than make “the daily miracle” of a newspaper ready available to their word-thirsty children. Children naturally like the variety of a newspaper. Scrolling a mashup of headlines on their digital devices does not cut it.

A quality newsmagazine. A hard copy of the weekly The Atlantic is about $80 per year

-Cable access (40 Basic Channels, including some good news sources) about $50 per month.

BBC$2400 a year may seem like an expendable budget item. But not paying to be as informed as you can be comes at a price, including the current rueful state of American national politics.