4 ms·

I recently subscribed to the weekend WSJ just because I love to hold and read a newspaper. I really can not explain why.

piva00 3y ago
I've been considering subscribing to newspapers again to avoid the bombardment of news online. I used to love waking up, making coffee, and sitting with the paper for some 30-45 minutes to start the day. Reading the news online in the morning has the opposite effect, I just feel drained and scatterbrained.
Fnoord 3y ago
I remember arguing with a guy selling NRC trials. I was like all the news is available online. Online is where it happens. This was end of the '00 decade. iPhone was all hot and Nokia was in trouble. I couldn't imagine people would keep paying for newspapers. Why? They're slow, old news. You pay for it and it still contains ads. Even the news on TV and radio was slower than the internet and also contained ads (we pay for public broadcasting / non-profit via taxation). Only later on I realized in a world with limited time smarter folks read newspapers not for news but for interpretation. That doesn't have to be on same day as the news since it is an in-depth, well though, unique expert proposition (of course there is also pulp). Which was the USP the salesman was arguing. How did it turn out? Internet became a world of tracking and advertising, the EU fought back with law. And I just never liked the feel of newspapers because they're so large and thin it is hard to switch pages. I ended up damaging pages. Especially outside in the wind. Maybe the tabloid format (the status quo nowadays?) suffers less from it. But then again I am an e-reader person. A newspaper you can forget/lose/damage though, an e-reader or smartphone not so much. I couldn't get into audiobooks (I miss too much / zone out) which saddens me. Because in-depth podcasts are definitely a guilty pleasure.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  > smarter folks read newspapers not for news but for interpretation smarter people who have never heard of gill-mann amnesia?
mooreds 3y ago
I have two personal reasons myself. The browsability of a newspaper is hard to beat. I can discover news and info far easier than reading the paper on my phone. Also, when reading the paper, I'm not constantly tempted to flip between different items (email, todos, other sites) so it feels more cohesive to me.
meyum33 3y ago
Man, I just got to read a paper edition of The Economist today. What a lovely experience. The crisp sound of paper, flipping through the pages with my own fingers, direct, effective, focused. All my memory neurons that wired together reading The Economist during my college years in those quite weekend mornings fired ferociously together. I can't even imagine how any gadget will ever beat it.
- macintux 3y ago
  When I was in high school, any opportunity to find a print copy of The Economist was a moment to be cherished. The annual subscription was way beyond my means, but if we took a school trip downtown, or if my parents and I went to a bookstore, I'd absolutely grab a copy. The Atlantic, however, was ridiculously affordable. I had a subscription by the time I was in my early 20s for, IIRC, about $14 a year. Might have even been $14 for two years.

piva00 3y ago

I've been considering subscribing to newspapers again to avoid the bombardment of news online. I used to love waking up, making coffee, and sitting with the paper for some 30-45 minutes to start the day. Reading the news online in the morning has the opposite effect, I just feel drained and scatterbrained.

Fnoord 3y ago

I remember arguing with a guy selling NRC trials. I was like all the news is available online. Online is where it happens. This was end of the '00 decade. iPhone was all hot and Nokia was in trouble. I couldn't imagine people would keep paying for newspapers. Why? They're slow, old news. You pay for it and it still contains ads. Even the news on TV and radio was slower than the internet and also contained ads (we pay for public broadcasting / non-profit via taxation). Only later on I realized in a world with limited time smarter folks read newspapers not for news but for interpretation. That doesn't have to be on same day as the news since it is an in-depth, well though, unique expert proposition (of course there is also pulp). Which was the USP the salesman was arguing. How did it turn out? Internet became a world of tracking and advertising, the EU fought back with law. And I just never liked the feel of newspapers because they're so large and thin it is hard to switch pages. I ended up damaging pages. Especially outside in the wind. Maybe the tabloid format (the status quo nowadays?) suffers less from it. But then again I am an e-reader person. A newspaper you can forget/lose/damage though, an e-reader or smartphone not so much. I couldn't get into audiobooks (I miss too much / zone out) which saddens me. Because in-depth podcasts are definitely a guilty pleasure.

ekianjo 3y ago
> smarter folks read newspapers not for news but for interpretation smarter people who have never heard of gill-mann amnesia?

mooreds 3y ago

I have two personal reasons myself. The browsability of a newspaper is hard to beat. I can discover news and info far easier than reading the paper on my phone. Also, when reading the paper, I'm not constantly tempted to flip between different items (email, todos, other sites) so it feels more cohesive to me.

meyum33 3y ago

Man, I just got to read a paper edition of The Economist today. What a lovely experience. The crisp sound of paper, flipping through the pages with my own fingers, direct, effective, focused. All my memory neurons that wired together reading The Economist during my college years in those quite weekend mornings fired ferociously together. I can't even imagine how any gadget will ever beat it.

macintux 3y ago
When I was in high school, any opportunity to find a print copy of The Economist was a moment to be cherished. The annual subscription was way beyond my means, but if we took a school trip downtown, or if my parents and I went to a bookstore, I'd absolutely grab a copy. The Atlantic, however, was ridiculously affordable. I had a subscription by the time I was in my early 20s for, IIRC, about $14 a year. Might have even been $14 for two years.