Archiving Printed News: Digital Files vs Microfilm
At BloggerCon, I had a conversation with someone about whether digital files will replace traditional archiving methods. I told him about the perspective of many news librarians: microfilm is still the standard, but we’re paying attention to digital technology. As if right on cue, today someone raised the issue on Newslib (an e-mail discussion list for news librarians) by asking whether anyone is favoring pdfs over microfilming. Michael Jesse, library director of The Indianapolis Star, summed up the major points favoring microfilming in his e-mail to the list:
“Although page PDFs are great, I don’t think it would be a good idea
to stop microfilming.
(1) You copyright your paper using microfilm and the Library of
Congress is not likely to move quickly to adopt a new method.
(2) Being essentially a photograph, your microfilm is more solid
‘proof of what you published exactly,’ whereas a PDF can be manipulated. This can matter in some legal situations.
(3) We are still uncertain about the long-term durability of
electronic storage media. The first generation of microfilm did not last either, but the current techniques have proven durability.”
(posted with Michael’s permission)
