The libraries journalists lost when newspapers digitised

This is a story I wrote in March 2010 about search engines replacing real people. Updated January 2026, with AI promising to replace even more human expertise. The question matters more than ever: what do we lose when algorithms replace institutional knowledge?

From librarians to Google to AI: What we keep losing

When this was written in 2010, search engines had just replaced newspaper libraries. By 2026, AI promises to replace search engines. But each replacement loses something valuable.

2010: Librarians knew context, could suggest angles, remembered the unofficial story behind the official one. Google found keywords but missed nuance.

2026: AI chatbots generate answers but can't tell you "actually, you should talk to the person who was there" or "the official version isn't the whole story." They hallucinate facts, confidently wrong.

What newspapers lost wasn't just a filing system—it was institutional memory embodied in people. This loss contributed to journalism's decline in ways publishers didn't anticipate.

Newspapers 50 years ago

When I started as a journalist in the late 1970s, newspapers and magazines were still put together using hot metal type. In theory union demarcation meant journalists never got close to the compositor machines in the bowels of the newspaper building, but there were a few times when I did.

The fundamentals of good journalism haven't changed, even if everything else has.

At times I catch a faint metallic smell that reminds me of those days.

I also remember the clack of typewriters, telephones with bells, the noisy newsroom clash of egos, the mumbling from the subs desk and the late night questions from the proof-readers. I’ve never been a smoker, but years spent working in newsrooms probably did as much damage to my lungs. Almost every desk had an sh-tray.

And all the pub lunches I ate while waiting for contacts to spill the beans and deliver an exclusive punished my liver.

Those were the days

Of course I miss the shabby, rumpled glamour of the old days. Journalism was fun then. It can still be fun. Although it's now a different kind of fun. The craft fundamentals remain, but the institutional support structure disappeared.

Working as an independent journalist in 2026 means you're not just a reporter—you're also your own librarian, fact-checker, editor, publisher and subscription manager. The tools changed, but without the institutional knowledge those librarians provided, something irreplaceable was lost.

Print could be glorious

Seeing your story on the home page of a newspaper web site is nothing compared to walking through town where all the newsstands show your latest story. There is thrill when you pass people in cafes or on the bus reading the news you wrote the day before.

Another romance I feel newspapers lost when moving to modern digital systems were their extensive clipping and photo libraries. They employed knowledgable librarians and the other custodians of arcane information who just knew how to find relevant material fast.

The story behind the story

Often, while you were in the newspaper library checking up on old stories, the librarian was often able to chime in with a valuable snippet of extra background information. You might have the clippings, but they'd have the memory of what happened at the time—the story behind the story.

Google did for them.

Sometimes Google can do a fine job of finding old information, but even at its best, it is not as comprehensive. Most of all, I miss chatting with an intelligent human being then seeing a Manilla folder of clips and photos arrive on my desk an hour or so later along with a memo reminding me to go and chat with someone involved with the original story.

Computers will never really replace that.

Computers will never really replace that.

What publishers lost by cutting librarians

Newspaper libraries and their keepers were among the first casualties of cost-cutting. Publishers saw them as expensive overhead—paying salaries for people to manage old clippings when "everything's online now."

This proved shortsighted in multiple ways:

Lost institutional memory: New reporters couldn't learn from experienced librarians who remembered decades of local stories, relationships and context.

Lost verification: A good librarian would say "that doesn't sound right" when you got facts wrong. Google just returns what you search for.

Lost discovery: Librarians suggested connections you hadn't thought of. "While you're looking at that 1995 story, you should also see what happened in 1987." Algorithms optimize for what you already know you want.

Lost local knowledge: As local journalism collapsed, there was no one left who remembered 30 years of civic history—who ran for mayor before, which projects failed, why certain streets were named what they were.

This wasn't just nostalgia. It was investigative capacity. Modern journalists spend hours googling what a librarian could have told them in five minutes—if librarians still existed.

AI doesn't solve what Google couldn't

In 2026, AI tools promise to replace both Google and human expertise. ChatGPT, Claude and others can summarise old news, suggest story angles, even draft articles.

But they can't tell you:

• "The official record says X, but everyone in town knows Y"
• "You should talk to the former mayor—she's still around and has files"
• "That company's press release contradicts what they said five years ago"
• "Be careful—that source has an agenda you should know about"

AI has no smell for when something doesn't add up. No memory of watching this play out before. No sense of "this reminds me of 1993 when..."

The skills good librarians possessed—pattern recognition across decades, institutional knowledge, human judgment—can't be replicated by algorithms trained on text.

Publishers thought they were cutting costs by eliminating librarians. They were actually eliminating competitive advantage.

More on journalism and media:

This post is part of ongoing coverage about journalism craft, institutional knowledge and the newsroom changes that shaped modern media:

• Dealing with the pay wall economy
• Online paywalls vs print: Why readers resist
• 'Paywall' is off-putting, try talking about subscriptions
• Journalists too mean to tech companies
• Apple's iPad won't save newspapers
• IndieWeb offers independence to journalists