Whenever I argue for discernment, library folks usually reject it. Seems you have done so too by lumping together a variety of periodicals and types. They also dismiss my conceptions of library mission/purpose/practice by branding them elitist or reducing their scope to something narrow and indefensible. My notions of library go beyond what you characterized in your reply so I’m going to take another bite at the apple.

In essence, I believe we support libraries to provide knowledge resources/services we cannot provide for ourselves. In the age of scarcity this might have meant access to a librarian who could read and write, when most of the general population could not. It might also have meant acquiring a full set of encyclopedias or newspapers from farway places – things that were beyond the reach (due to awareness and/or funding) for most individuals. Public education and the internet have raised the bar and though the information landscape has changed dramatically since libraries took root in America, I believe the library mission is the same.

If I were a library leader, I’d be asking “what knowledge and information services can libraries provide today that are not readily available elsewhere?” Materials like People Magazine and 50 Shades of Gray are readily available and receive widespread promotion. The same cannot be said for feminist quarterlies and some of the other materials you listed. Discernment is also scarce. Most other information distributors or sources (supermarkets, Amazon, newspapers, TV talk shows, etc) are going to push whatever sells, and in a superficial way. IMO, libraries should provide an alternative to this by curating a collection based on thoughtful standards.

A curated collection is valuable, to be sure – but so is the selection process. I never fail to be educated and enriched when librarians engage the topic of collection development with me and we drill into various genres, criteria, dimensions and dilemmas. The knowledge, range of concerns and frankly integrity that librarians bring to these matters is what is scarce today. It is a key component of their unique value-add and it pains me when people in the library community say things like “we’re just giving people what they want” or “you can’t assess quality because one man’s trash is another’s treasure”.

The other argument I often get is that there is no public appetite for discernment. I disagree based on the large audiences for public broadcasting, content like TED talks & blogs on special topics, etc. Loads of people want to engage around civic issues & rich artistic and cultural content. Most public libraries have positioned themselves differently and aren’t attracting patrons with those interests. It’s a mistake however to take this as a sign that the public interest isn’t there.

In summary, I promote libraries providing what people cannot easily get elsewhere. The dialogue & insights you’ve offered about your research do this; People Magazine as an uncontextualized artifact does not. Similarly, selection and promotion of a psycho/sexual non-fiction work that is well-written, has strong plot & characters, extends the boundaries of the genre, is perhaps written by a promising author whose work has not received much attention do this. Circulating 50 Shades of Gray and letting it drive so much conversation in the library world does not.

It was not that long ago that comics (as they were once called) were considered to be not that significant. Now, most libraries proudly promote their collection of ‘graphic novels’ and these texts are also finding a place in the curriculum. Perhaps the gossip magazine will experience the same fate.

My point, I guess, is to suggest that there is an element of invasion, of profit at the expense of a real life, inherent to celebrity mags like US Weekly and, to she extent, People. A library’s unqualified inclusion of these magazines might not represent an implicit endorsement of this kind of behavior, but it would seem to.

I’m just glad she knows who Klosterman is.