The Newseum and the future
If the future of news is free, then why charge $20 to see its past?
That's what I was thinking when I read that it will cost a double sawbuck to visit the Newseum when it opens in Washington next month.
That could be a problem. I like history, I like museums and I love the news business. But in a city filled with history and museums -- am I going to visit one devoted to the history of news? Particularly when the Smithsonian is free? And if they aren't going to get someone like me....
The Newseum's VP says it's not aimed at me, which is probably good: "Our mission is helping the public understand how important a free press is to a functioning democracy," says Paul Sparrow.
I understand the importance of a free press. I just wish so many media organizations had not spent $435 million to do it. I know we're a self-absorbed lot, but doesn't this feel over the top?
At a time when the newspaper industry is in distress -- and newspaper companies paid big money to support the Newseum -- I question the priorities.
There's no reason that journalism shouldn't have a museum all its own. There are sure a lot of less important topics with their own museums. (Don't make fun of the Gopher Hole Museum, either.)
Understanding the past is fine, but it is the future that most of us are interested in understanding.
Update: Mark Potts smartly weighs in with more questions.