No matter that their inventions were created with the best, even honourable, intentions, they were bound to lead to trouble in the end. Neither Johannes Gutenberg nor William Caxton could have predicted their impact on the world stage. The wide-ranging use of the modern-day printing press varies from children’s books to pornography. From newspapers to the laws of the land. From the declaration of war to surrender. To name but a few. None of these would have been a consideration in the original manufacturing process. Indeed, the main motivation for Gutenberg, a goldsmith by trade, was financial reward.  

Prior to the advent of the printing press scribes or monks were tasked with the difficult job of copying books by hand onto vellum. This highly skilled and painstaking work could take a matter of weeks to complete a single manuscript whereas today many people own printers enabling them to print off documents at the click of a button.  

The invention of the printing press brought about a dramatic turn in the output of the written word. Gutenberg style printing presses were able to produce around 240 pages per hour. In contrast modern presses produce at a rate of 300 sheets per minute. 

The main benefit of the printing press has been the availability of books, magazines and newspapers to the general public via retail outlets and public libraries. However, although this has brought about an improvement in literacy rates and encouraged people to both enjoy and rejoice in the written word the National Literacy Trust sadly reported in 2023 that 8.6% of UK children do not own a book.  

Over the years the printing press has had serious social, educational and political ramifications. For example, until the introduction of compulsory state education in the 1880’s education was the preserve of the upper classes. Now it is compulsory until the age of 18. The reasoning being that a country’s success is paralleled by the education of its people.  

President Trump when first running for office stated, ‘I love the poorly educated.’ (24th February 2016 on You Tube and reported by The Associate Press). Presumably because those who were less educated were more likely to vote for him. The same is true in Afghanistan where the education of girls and women is severely restricted and the availability of books extremely limited. 

During WW2 the printing presses were busy producing masses of propaganda. The allies would drop thousands of leaflets (flyers) advising people of impending bombing and telling them to evacuate. Huge posters were produced by the War Advertising Council with such words as ‘Loose Lips Sink Ships’ and ‘Your country needs YOU.’  

As a result of the Printing Press people have been able to gain access to information more widely and increase their knowledge more easily. People can now discuss and develop their ideas and intentions globally however, such interactions do not always prove to be in the public interest.  

As stated in my opening paragraph, the invention of the Printing Press was no doubt an honourable venture. However, the integrity of some journalists and newspaper editors today is questionable. Newspapers have been challenged in the courts for their unacceptable intrusion into peoples’ private lives. E.g. phone tapping. They have printed and distributed stories for public titillation and profit without regard for the psychological damage their words have caused to the victims. They have used the celebrated ‘Freedom of the Press’ as their defence saying that the public deserve to know and that their investigations have been in the public interest.  

By contrast, good investigative journalists have worked tirelessly to expose the wrong-doings and lies of prominent previously highly-regarded people in the public eye. Those stories have been published in the press by strong editors determined to inform the public, set the record straight holding the perpetrators to account.  

There are arguments both for and against the Printing Press. Do we really need it? After all many people are now accessing information on line, via their mobile devices and the 24 hour a day news channels. They are reading more but are still nevertheless sometimes less well informed than if they had chosen to read a reputable newspaper. This is due to the source of the information. Sadly, despite reassurances from media operators any Tom, Dick or Harry can write pretty much whatever they like, about whoever they like on social platforms without too much fear of retribution. They are able to offer up opinion as fact without proper research, give judgements on public figures without due regard for their accuracy, and criticize the actions of innocent and not so innocent individuals without sufficient knowledge as to the background of the case. Platforms are working to improve but scammers are often streets ahead offering us goods we never knew we needed until we saw it on there. It’s a case of detection rather than prevention.  

On the other hand, social media enables us to stay in touch with friends and family. Share photographs. Donate to charity. Shop, browse, research and yes…write. Many people have now published on line without the need for a printing press. Or come to that, an editor. Is that a good thing? Clearly some people think so otherwise it wouldn’t be so popular. The nub of the problem is often finance. Social media is perceived as free, books and newspapers aren’t.  

Money…there’s another question for the printing press. Will they still be printing it, will we still be using actual currency in say…twenty years? Are we heading towards a cashless society or, perish the thought, a bookless society?  

In conclusion I’d like to say that despite its drawbacks and the development of technology the case for the continuation of the Printing Press remains strong. It’s been used successfully for centuries to produce the written word. And as the saying goes, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’  

National Literacy Trust sadly reported in 2023 that 8.6% of UK children do not own a book.  

(24th February 2016 on You Tube and reported by The Associate Press).  

War Advertising Council with such words as ‘Loose Lips Sink Ships’ and ‘Your country needs YOU.’