The other day I saw “State of Play.” Is this just another forgettable title for yet another by-the-books thriller? Well yes and no. Though a bit convoluted it’s also an edgy, and nearly-noir-ish D.C. thriller about the tug and tow relationship between the press, the cops and politics.

Russell Crowe gives a very decent portrayal of the classic, out of shape, non-leading man journalist a la the Woodward and Bernstein of “All the President’s Men.” A story hangs in the balance for Crowe due to an old friendship with a hotshot good-looking congressman played by Ben Affleck and his wife, played by Robin Wright Penn.

I’m beginning to like this Affleck dude. For the past few years (post Jenny from the Block and with Jen, respectively) he’s been in several solid flicks and he directed one I thought was among the best of 2007, “Gone Baby Gone.” A lengthy ordeal features Jason Bateman, who nearly steals the film as a sleazy PR guy, is one of the highlights of the film.

At its heart the movie reveals that for those who work in the business journalism can be a grinding, thankless and ultimately exhilarating profession. Publishers, editors, writers all fight for its relevancy; the newspaper industry is not one you can just abandon. People get addicted to their job. Just as with anything it grows on you until it’s in your blood. For me it began with “Harriet the Spy,” a book that long ago influenced me to ask questions and write about what I saw and heard. So having lost my job, I blog. Isn’t that the logical step? What would Russell Crowe’s character, Cal McCaffrey, do in the same situation though? I suspect, he’d wither up and die. But in the movie even he saw the affects of instant gratification that comes from the web.

Kevin Macdonald, who last directed Forest Whitaker to an Oscar in “Last King of Scotland,” helmed “State of Play.” Before becoming a documentary filmmaker and then feature director he went to journalism school. It also features Rachel McAdams in a fairly adult role signaling perhaps a maturing in her career. She’s a great counterpoint between Crowe and his tough and conflicted editor Helen Mirren, who frankly isn’t as tough as some real editors I’ve seen.

At the end of the movie the enormous, hi-tech machines used to print papers are in action. There’s barely a person in sight. It’s all done by computer. Finally the papers are bundled, and a male employee backs the loader up to a delivery truck outside. As soon as the papers are inside, the truck’s rear cargo door is pulled down. Black out. The end.

Someone suggested this black ending spelled the end of newspapers, but I thought perhaps it was the opposite. This was where the case for newspapers was made complete. There’s even the tell tale line delivered by McAdams who says “People should have ink on their fingers when they read this story.”

But even if everyone felt a similar fondness for print it might not matter. It may just be inevitable. Newsprint that relies on advertising may not have a bright future in the U.S. Meanwhile in the U.K. there are some 376 newspapers in an area a little smaller than Michigan.

In a Huffington Post Monday called ‘No Newspapers At Any Price,’ Jeff Jarvis, an author and professor at CUNY school of Journalism, writes:
“It makes less sense every day to try to preserve and protect - to invest in - what is obviously a failing model. Every day that papers keep printing is a day that they haven't reinvented themselves for a new reality.

The same can be said of the auto industry, retail, banking, education, and many other sectors of society… This isn't doom saying, though. It is a reality check. It is nothing more than observing what is obviously and inexorably happening in the economy and society. The insane response to this change is to resist it and mourn it. The sane response is to find the opportunity in it.

Don't bail. Build.”

Those in mourning include readers of Christian Science Monitor, which closed after 100-years in print, The Boston Globe which is near closing. New Jerseys largest paper The Newark Star-Ledger, the Los Angeles Times and the San Jose Mercury News all laid off half their staffs. Closed completely were such stalwarts as the 146-year-old Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, which closed after 150 years.

In Connecticut, 13 newspapers, including two mid-sized dailies, have stopped printing or are close to it. Others that already went down the drain include the Baltimore Examiner, Kentucky Post, Cincinnati Post, King County Journal, Union City Register-Tribune, Halifax Daily News, Albuquerque Tribune and South Idaho Press.

It’s a sorry state of affairs let alone play.

Here’s an idea that Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, introduced in March. The Newspaper Revitalization Act bill would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofit organizations for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies. Aimed at local market papers versus big conglomerates the bill would allow advertising and circulation revenue to be claimed as tax exempt. Newspapers could still report on all issues, including political campaigns, but they could no longer make political endorsements.

Is the business of journalism really dead or just the inky news-sheets? As the business stands now, journalism as a career is rather dicey. There are already many hundreds of out of work journalists? It’s hard to imagine that writing for print will be akin to ‘eight-track’ tapes and manual typewriters.

I have told my kids about the days before answer phones, video players, digital, CDs and computers. It’s hard for them to fathom that information was not a Google search away. How will we answer to ourselves if we loose newspapers? Sometimes people need to get their hands dirty and inky to really grasp the story. Will it be considered progress if people who have no money for a computer or iPhone are left off of the news? Which brings up the question of delivery. How then will the news be relayed?

It’s true that on-line news is cheaper, convenient and up to date. Overhead is slim, and reading on-line is immediate. But a newspaper is something to read over time, to peruse over coffee, to pick up and carry home, to clip and save, scrapbook and save to show future generations.

Many years ago I was in Bejing, China (then still known as Peking) during the Gang of Four Trial, in which Mao Tse-Tung’s widow, Chiang Ching, and others were charged with a series of treasonous crimes. No one had a television of their own. But on the streets massive pages of the latest news were glued onto buildings’ walls and crowds of Chinese read and discussed the latest installments. It was heady and exciting even though I couldn’t read Chinese. It was the beginning of China’s emergence from the Cultural Revolution. And I was there and they were reading the news.