An old printer remembers
Sir: I am most reluctant to voice any criticism whatsoever of Christopher Booker's fine and perceptive article 'Upstairs, Downstairs at The Times' (2 December). So much of what he says is absolutely true and it very much needed saying. And as usual Mr Booker has said what overwhelming numbers of us feel about 'the workers'.
I cannot, in the interests of truth and accuracy, however, accept his reference to 'clanking, oily old machines' etc, implying that printing machinery has hardly changed since the days of Caxton. This is a phrase all too often bandied about, and is far from the truth.
For fifty years I worked on linotype machines, and the later ones I worked on bore little or no resemblance to those old Model-1 types I first encountered somewhere in the early 1920's. And the teletypesetting computerised equipment used by many newspapers is, although now considered by some as obsolete, even more advanced.
Likewise with rotary presses in the machinery halls of our great national dailies. Admittedly, many of these have had a long life, but when one remembers the old, slow and laborious rotaries, with much handling of the paper reels by hoisting apparatus, these bear, no resemblance to the lines of unit presses, no reels observable above ground, still widely in use. They are doing a fine job.
Modern technology has much to answer for: standards of spelling, justification, accuracy, have in many cases suffered greatly. The only conceivable benefit is in the printed image which in most cases is admittedly much better.
Harold S. Priestley, 16 Alexandra Drive, Manchester
Previous page
