Any decent newspapers?
Discussion
I always wonder who buys the Express. They always have some fantastical headline, usually to do with some Princess Diana conspiracy that anyone who actually was interested in to start with lost interest about 10 years ago, or in recent weeks they have all been about -20 degree end-of-the-world arctic weather coming our way in the next week or so (which didn't happen on any occasion, in fact one of the mildest autumns I can remember!)
FT is the only paper you should read. Owned by Pearson, no celebrity junk. No junk news at all in fact (i.e. dog falls down well in newcastle). Comment section usually full of interesting and insightful stuff. Available online/iphone/ipad.
FT Weekend has all the arts/cultural stuff you could ever need as well.
FT Weekend has all the arts/cultural stuff you could ever need as well.
Derek Smith said:
Newsprint has a problem. They have lost journalists hand over fist because of poor circulation and dropping advertising revenue. Online doesn't give the same return on adverts although the DM is one of the, if not the, leading one online with regards to hits. Most of it is bought in rubbish.
Times online is really rubbish and not worth even the £1 per week I'm paying at the moment.
I have to read current news as I write articles and so go through all the online papers, hence having to pay for the Times, probably the clunkiest news outlet there. There is very little point I've found.
I also watch the news, Sky for what might interest the far right, BBC for the left and ITN for what must be the most unbiased news available. The irony is that the least biased source gives me the least copy.
We've had biased newspapers, most to the right, for a century. Before the war most supported Mosley and many of those who felt themselves under threat believed that they represented the common view of the masses.
Both the independent and guardian try to present themselves as middle of the road. The DM and the times make no such pretentions and the Telgraph - well, what can you say apart from how the mighty have fallen.
We are witnessing the end of newsprint as mass media I think. The Mail shows us the way. Turn into a comic. Certainly their influence is dropping away. Most of us get our news via TV and use papers as little more than entertainment.
I haven't bought newspapers regularly for years, not since outlets went online. The Times is a shadow of its former self, as are most papers. It is sad although we now have much more access to news than ever before.
One good point is that, with the multiplicity of sources, cover-ups are now much more difficult. Thirty years ago the phone hacking scandal would have been sleeved by the first police enquiry and everyone would have been happy. Now there's nowhere to hide. It is a fundamental change.
I've just researched an article on the Tour de France. Fair enough I know a fair bit but I needed a hook. After four hours online I had about four times as much information as I needed - and that was without going on Wiki. Even fifteen years ago it would have required a visit to a central library and twice as long to get less than a quarter of the information.
I would not have been able to write a current affairs article once a week without spending days on research. So why do we still have newspapers?
Nespapers are no longer the source of background information. Why should you read a newspaper column by the daugther of a television personality when the information you need is available online and written better?
I used to take a newspaper when I went on a train. Now I read a book.
I read the Eye every fortnight. That's the nearest I get to a newspaper.
I've been impressed by the Guardian's investigative bent over recent times. It certaily leaves most of the others far behind. It is biased in editorial to be sure but that's not so important nowadays when one reads from so many sources.
National newspapers have had their day I would suggest. Sad. I wanted to be a journalist when I was a kid. Being a kid nowdays would put you in good stead.
The last real throw of newspapers was Watergate. It's been downhill since then. There have been occasional flurries, with the expenses scandal and wikileaks but I do feel that there will be just two or three in the future, none of which have journalists working on them.
I suspect for the OP that sat in a van with a pastie and a coke, a newspaper is easier to read than taking an ipad and browsing through that.Times online is really rubbish and not worth even the £1 per week I'm paying at the moment.
I have to read current news as I write articles and so go through all the online papers, hence having to pay for the Times, probably the clunkiest news outlet there. There is very little point I've found.
I also watch the news, Sky for what might interest the far right, BBC for the left and ITN for what must be the most unbiased news available. The irony is that the least biased source gives me the least copy.
We've had biased newspapers, most to the right, for a century. Before the war most supported Mosley and many of those who felt themselves under threat believed that they represented the common view of the masses.
Both the independent and guardian try to present themselves as middle of the road. The DM and the times make no such pretentions and the Telgraph - well, what can you say apart from how the mighty have fallen.
We are witnessing the end of newsprint as mass media I think. The Mail shows us the way. Turn into a comic. Certainly their influence is dropping away. Most of us get our news via TV and use papers as little more than entertainment.
I haven't bought newspapers regularly for years, not since outlets went online. The Times is a shadow of its former self, as are most papers. It is sad although we now have much more access to news than ever before.
One good point is that, with the multiplicity of sources, cover-ups are now much more difficult. Thirty years ago the phone hacking scandal would have been sleeved by the first police enquiry and everyone would have been happy. Now there's nowhere to hide. It is a fundamental change.
I've just researched an article on the Tour de France. Fair enough I know a fair bit but I needed a hook. After four hours online I had about four times as much information as I needed - and that was without going on Wiki. Even fifteen years ago it would have required a visit to a central library and twice as long to get less than a quarter of the information.
I would not have been able to write a current affairs article once a week without spending days on research. So why do we still have newspapers?
Nespapers are no longer the source of background information. Why should you read a newspaper column by the daugther of a television personality when the information you need is available online and written better?
I used to take a newspaper when I went on a train. Now I read a book.
I read the Eye every fortnight. That's the nearest I get to a newspaper.
I've been impressed by the Guardian's investigative bent over recent times. It certaily leaves most of the others far behind. It is biased in editorial to be sure but that's not so important nowadays when one reads from so many sources.
National newspapers have had their day I would suggest. Sad. I wanted to be a journalist when I was a kid. Being a kid nowdays would put you in good stead.
The last real throw of newspapers was Watergate. It's been downhill since then. There have been occasional flurries, with the expenses scandal and wikileaks but I do feel that there will be just two or three in the future, none of which have journalists working on them.
When I eat, I like to be occupied. Talking or reading news for example.
Just to add to the forums/blogs are a better source of news than papers, here's todays telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/w...
Wasnt there a thread on that in here a few days ago?!
I see this more and more.
'Journalists' trawling forums/blogs for stories and passing them off as their own.
Dont buy papers, dont watch TV. Its all crap.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/w...
Wasnt there a thread on that in here a few days ago?!
I see this more and more.
'Journalists' trawling forums/blogs for stories and passing them off as their own.
Dont buy papers, dont watch TV. Its all crap.
Used to read the Times when I actually bought a daily paper, used to enjoy it and thought, even though a Murdoch paper, it was pretty impartial, if essentially right leaning.
I also used to subscribe to the Economist but got a bit board of their one solution approach to everything (sell it off, strip assets, reduce regulation; even if the story was about the Large Hadron Collider).
Now I subscribe to the New Statesman and read all my other news online from about 5 or 6 different outlets, mainly to compare how they're telling the same story.
I know it's 'lefty' but you'll be amazed at what the New Statesman covers that no one else does, and I'm not talking about just political stuff.
I also used to subscribe to the Economist but got a bit board of their one solution approach to everything (sell it off, strip assets, reduce regulation; even if the story was about the Large Hadron Collider).
Now I subscribe to the New Statesman and read all my other news online from about 5 or 6 different outlets, mainly to compare how they're telling the same story.
I know it's 'lefty' but you'll be amazed at what the New Statesman covers that no one else does, and I'm not talking about just political stuff.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff