5 ms·

Specifically, the New York Times and the New Yorker. They've both been around for 100+ years. Sometimes the tech industry bubble produces hilarious comments...

lbotos 8y ago
Do you read either, right now? The NYT is suuuuuuuper biased. I want liberal freedoms to be allowed to people, but they are pushing an agenda. Really strong. I don't want to subsidize the stories I don't care about. That's the difference. Why should we? The New Yorker is a little better, but it's still "people" focused. I want more macro views. I tried WSJ and Financial Times. Both suffered a bit from "fluff" and I wasn't going to give them $300/yr to feel like I was paying for filler. I'm sad that you think I'm incapable of appreciating newspapers or magazines. I just think that both of those concepts are failing. What's the future look like? <3
- untog 8y ago
  Here's the bad news: there is no such thing as unbiased news. For example: > I don't want to subsidize the stories I don't care about. You, as the chooser (or editor) of stories are introducing bias already, before any reporting is done.
  - eropple 8y ago
    It almost reads as if the person to whom you reply wants their own personal biases reinforced. Hm.
    - a_tractor 8y ago
      It sounds more like a desire for more granular control as a way to access the things in which they are interested without wasting resources or time on things in which they are not. Or you can just call everything "bias" to make a condescending assumption about someone you don't know.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  In spite of some of those comments I’d like to point out there are a lot of great magazines still running US: - The Atlantic - Harpers - Wired still does great long form - Bloomberg Businessweek does as well - Help me out people... Canada: - Maclean’s - the Walrus - Taddle Creek The concepts aren’t failing. They still inspire lengthy discussions and awareness on a wide range of subjects. And they’re available in multiple forms- paper, web, and other digital subscriptions like in house apps or Google or Apple News
ummonk 8y ago
Both are doing fine financially.

lbotos 8y ago

Do you read either, right now? The NYT is suuuuuuuper biased. I want liberal freedoms to be allowed to people, but they are pushing an agenda. Really strong. I don't want to subsidize the stories I don't care about. That's the difference. Why should we? The New Yorker is a little better, but it's still "people" focused. I want more macro views. I tried WSJ and Financial Times. Both suffered a bit from "fluff" and I wasn't going to give them $300/yr to feel like I was paying for filler. I'm sad that you think I'm incapable of appreciating newspapers or magazines. I just think that both of those concepts are failing. What's the future look like? <3

untog 8y ago
Here's the bad news: there is no such thing as unbiased news. For example: > I don't want to subsidize the stories I don't care about. You, as the chooser (or editor) of stories are introducing bias already, before any reporting is done.
- eropple 8y ago
  It almost reads as if the person to whom you reply wants their own personal biases reinforced. Hm.
  - a_tractor 8y ago
    It sounds more like a desire for more granular control as a way to access the things in which they are interested without wasting resources or time on things in which they are not. Or you can just call everything "bias" to make a condescending assumption about someone you don't know.
52-6F-62 8y ago
In spite of some of those comments I’d like to point out there are a lot of great magazines still running US: - The Atlantic - Harpers - Wired still does great long form - Bloomberg Businessweek does as well - Help me out people... Canada: - Maclean’s - the Walrus - Taddle Creek The concepts aren’t failing. They still inspire lengthy discussions and awareness on a wide range of subjects. And they’re available in multiple forms- paper, web, and other digital subscriptions like in house apps or Google or Apple News

ummonk 8y ago

Both are doing fine financially.