> I only read one of the opposing papers whenever I get a chance. A point to this is that a "good" paper also publishes op-eds from "the other side" And someti

> I only read one of the opposing papers whenever I get a chance. A point to this is that a "good" paper also publishes op-eds from "the other side" And sometimes those are really well written, really trying to convince you instead of just preaching the choir. The thing I saw often pre-Internet was that people had a local paper, a national paper and maybe a weekly magazine/paper. I myself currently am subscribed (as in paying, my RSS Reader has lots more) a local epaper and a national weekly printed paper. The later is nice (except I often disagree with many views stated) as it lives outside the fast breaking news cycle of the inline world and by being paper I really look through it (unless I spend too much time elsewhere ...) page by page instead of quickly scrolling through my RSS feed or quickly scanning over news sites. > What GP writes about, though, reads more like the future of entertainment, not news. Yes, the amount of ways to spend leisure time increased a lot. The amount of media one can consume is incredible, which leads to ... > , I seem to have fewer and fewer cultural references in common with my more senior colleagues who still watch broadcast TV. ... less of a common experience. The big TV events, the big news, ... it becomes all a more unique experience. Even with TV shows "everybody" watches: In the morning, after an episode of some show was released there is this one guy in the office "oh please don't spoil, I haven't watched that episode, yet" in the past there was this guy "oh damn, I missed it, please tell me what happens, so I can follow along next week"