COMM 209, 150: The future of newspapering?

Today's Washington Post has some letters to the editor about the future of the newspaper industry. Plus the paper's responses.

Tim Dudenhoefer, a reader in Silver Spring, Md., suggests:

... Stop publishing The Post.

First, it would save paper. Even recycled paper still needs to be processed, packaged and shipped; that costs money and puts cars on the road.

Second, quiet presses do not use fossil-fuel-generated electricity.

So it goes, for two more points. Dudenhoffer concludes: "So, when can we expect you all to shut your doors for the good of the planet?"

His reply comes in an Editor's Note: "We're giving your wisdom serious consideration. This may be your last newspaper.

Another reader, Cory Correll of Germantown, Md., says "you have a lot of nerve suggesting folks use less paper when you make a living printing on all the paper you do! Hypocrite! Why don't we just move back into caves, use candles and walk everywhere?"

Finally, Ellen McGee of Severna Park, Md., writes:

Newspapers can be a friend to the environment. When finished reading the paper, 10 pages of the paper, with hay over it, provide a very effective, organic and inexpensive mulch. Water is retained, and the weeds don't grow. Your feet lie on soft hay, and you don't get dirty.

Which led The Post to post (no pun intended) this note: Sorry, Mr. Dudenhoefer , Ms. McGee has persuaded us to continue publishing The Post.