I JUST WANT TO READ

Hey, hello, yoo hoo, over here, look my way. Hmm, nothing. How about “howdy pardner.” Gotcha, thanks to using a shopworn “western” cliché someone like me in the Hinterlands beyond the Great Sagebrush Sea needs to use to get your attention.

Thanks for your attention, New York Times and Washington Post. I realize it’s hard to pull your head out of the East Coast vortex of “all things important to the nation, the world and important people not in flyover country” just to listen to a rube like me comment on your newspapers, er, your content as it’s now called. Hey,

no sneaking off stage Los Angeles Times. You get in here too since you’ve finished gushing over the Golden Globes and gowns and beach alerts. Yes, I know the Eastern Sierra might as well be the Eastern Siberia but give me a couple minutes of your time before you wrap up that 2,200-word fantasy feature about George Clooney secretly marrying Julia Roberts.

Again, thanks to you three newspaper giants who are still standing in the digital, streaming era. And rest assured I back up my gratitude with cold, hard subscription cash.

As a paying reader, I would like to suggest a few things that bug me and seem to counteract your ongoing mission to keep people reading your newspapers. Granted, that’s a bit of a misnomer since all I get is digital access, but still.

First off, New York Times, please stop posting how many minutes you think it will take me to read each big story. Unlike some folks, I have an attention span longer then a gnat, so I don’t need to be warned that some dribble about the Supreme Court is a “7 minute” read. Or that is will only take 3 minutes to absorb the news that Trump’s Venezuelan oil scam is falling apart.

You don’t know how fast I read, and you don’t know how much couch time I have to meander through your stories. Trust your reporters to craft an engaging story. If I like it I will plunge ahead for 10 minutes. If I don’t, I’ll scan it and move on after 1 minute. Don’t try to baby me, please.

The Times and the Washington Post both offer the option to listen to the story read out loud. Listen? I’m reading a newspaper, emphasis on read. If I want to listen I’ll turn on radio or cable TV news. I find it horrifying that both papers constantly bemoan the reality that reading is a fading skill, then let their alleged readers not read and chose to listen to their stories. Of course, the Times and Post both use an AI-generated “voice,” which is as flat as a plate of water. No inflection, no emotion no inflections. A junior high DJ could do better.

Podcasts? Really? Stop. See above.

Then we have the big list of videos on newspaper sites. Said videos are not unique or new or interesting. They are canned news videos and PR puff pieces available all over the internet. Haven’t the big-brained news folks heard of Instagram or TikTok or YouTube? Apparently not.

Same for the absolutely dumb idea of having a newspaper reporter recite a story in a video. I don’t need to listen to a word geek stumble over a script in a video with all the production value of Uncle Jasper’s basement holiday hoedown. It takes skill to read live, and it takes cameras and equipment. Unfortunately, by the looks of the reporters I’ve seen trying their hand at TV news, no money is being spent on wardrobe, hair, makeup or even a nice shave.

Again, if I want to watch TV news, I’ll watch TV news. 

The LA Times might be the biggest offender in the video news scam. The first thing that pops up on its home page is “LA Times Media Group Streaming.” Live camera feeds. Who cares? Not me.

Back to the Washington Post and another annoyance on its website: an “AI Overview.” Which is just a weak summary of the story. Scroll into the story and guess what else pops up? Correct. “Ask the Post AI.” I’m sorry, but if I want computer generated chat, I’ll just Google something and get AI twaddle immediately. I don’t need to wade into a news story to tag into AI. Or how about having reporters and other living breathing human beings dig into the issues and questions and put out a solid, well researched, written and edited story with some answers? Sort of the job description, I thought.

Finally, there is the absolutely insane irony found in the Jan. 13 Washington Post which showcased a story with the headline: “College paper fights to stop AI slop website from stealing its identity.”

Jon Klusmire of Bishop doesn’t rely on artificial intelligence, and sometimes has doubts about his real-life, human intelligence.