3 ms·

Late last year, I signed up for a daily delivery of a physical copy of The Financial Times. I rarely read news websites, other than HN and Reddit. Why? Because

Late last year, I signed up for a daily delivery of a physical copy of The Financial Times. I rarely read news websites, other than HN and Reddit. Why? Because I wanted to be informed about world events but dislike the always-on nature of online news, and because I have a certain romantic ideal of reading the morning newspaper with a cup of coffee. Unfortunately it doesn't arrive in the morning and usually comes around noon. How has it been? Both good and bad. I do like having a physical paper put in the mailbox, as it's fun to look forward to a "delivery" every day that is more real than just looking at my phone. On the other hand, I find the FT to be worth reading only about every other issue, largely because there simply isn't enough news to report in 24 hours. The opinion and editorial sections make up a decent portion of the paper and largely aren't worth reading. But, every other issue or so, there are a few excellent articles absolutely worth the price of admission. And even then, the quality of the "boring" articles is leaps and bounds above what I used to read in the NYT or the Guardian. I'm not sure if I'll be renewing it later this year, as it does feel like I'm wasting a lot of paper – but only on the days when I don't enjoy the articles. I wish they had a twice weekly edition, which would be the perfect interval IMO.

syndicatedjelly 3y ago
Check out The Economist, it’s a weekly publication and has generally very high quality writing as well
- keiferski 3y ago
  I used to read The Economist but the viewpoint irked me too much after awhile. I suppose The Financial Times is nominally somewhat similar, but I've found the FT to be a little more grounded, probably because they're primarily a paper for people in finance first and the general public second.
  - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
    What was it about their viewpoint that bothered you specifically? Just curious, I’ve generally found their reporting balanced, with a tilt towards economic liberalism and democratic institutions (which they proudly state as their philosophy)
    - keiferski 3y ago
      To be honest, it was awhile ago and I don’t remember precisely. It just didn’t seem like that original of a viewpoint and not something that was worth paying for. The FT is much more finance-details oriented and less ideological, which I do appreciate.

syndicatedjelly 3y ago

Check out The Economist, it’s a weekly publication and has generally very high quality writing as well

keiferski 3y ago
I used to read The Economist but the viewpoint irked me too much after awhile. I suppose The Financial Times is nominally somewhat similar, but I've found the FT to be a little more grounded, probably because they're primarily a paper for people in finance first and the general public second.
- syndicatedjelly 3y ago
  What was it about their viewpoint that bothered you specifically? Just curious, I’ve generally found their reporting balanced, with a tilt towards economic liberalism and democratic institutions (which they proudly state as their philosophy)
  - keiferski 3y ago
    To be honest, it was awhile ago and I don’t remember precisely. It just didn’t seem like that original of a viewpoint and not something that was worth paying for. The FT is much more finance-details oriented and less ideological, which I do appreciate.