Does sir require a newspaper?

I'm not going to touch that question, Tony, as I may be in the running for that title.  

As to the newspaper, I've subscribed to the Seattle Times since I moved here almost 20 years ago.  Part of my daily routine is to come home from work and read the paper as I listen to music.  I'm finding that I abhor TV more and more the older and more synical I get.  It seems to be all about hash-tagging this and thumbs-upping that with your smart phone.  Internet, maybe, but I prefer the hard copy despite its carbon footprint.  I also like the comics and the crossword.  I find that if left on the kitchen table, my teenagers will read the paper while having a snack.  My wife reads it as well, so it really gets a lot of use in my house.  And it all gets recycled.

I have pretty much read a paper all my life, indeed I have read one most days from teenager onwards apart from a spell as a student. I have access to it online but rarely use it, the app is well enough designed but I find I skim it online but read things in more depth in the paper.

I use it not just for news but comment, editorials and features too.

My paper buying has reflected my increasing socialism, Torygraph when living at home, Indy when first left home and now solidly Grauniad!

Bruce

Sir may not require a newspaper but sir and madam in general require journalism.

Chris

We have not bought a newspaper either for a couple of decades.  Unless you count Private Eye - it is amazing how often they highlight something which you hear about on the BBC a year later.

Sometimes I read a newspaper down the pub, the purpose being, as I think it was Orwell who said, "not to find out what is happening in the world, but what the papers are saying..."

Don overcast and drab downtown York

I used to buy the weekend papers since my early twenties, mostly The Guardian, sometimes The Independant...just before I stopped buying them altogether I occasionally bought The Times as I realised that quite often it had better news topics and was also better written in many respects...even though I would consider myself lefty, left. 

Then eventually, about a year before I left Blighty, I stopped buying them because I found they had become a little sensationalist, hypocritical, staid and nasty. They became increasingly reliant on the supplements, fashion and star gazing in general. 

Having said that, the Norwegian press is quite passive and lazy in comparison in that they tend to report on quite mundane issues that are....safe. The only interesting topic that is reported on, because they can't ignore it, is immigration and this tends to be very, very tip toed on.

Having not read papers for 3 and a half years now, I don't miss them, but they are crucial as a medium. Reporting for online based media is less informative and less discursive iMV.

Jason

Norwegian Newspapers  - the population is spread over a large area and so interaction between the citizens is much reduced. Hence less news.

Many years ago I was hitch hiking from Narvik to Oslo and in the norther part was given rides by journalists on condition that they could get my story and take a picture of me with rucksack and Union Jack flag attached to rucksack.  This happened on two occasions.  

Jason has sort of given me and excuse, I hope, to develop on why I do not take English newspapers.

They all suffer from one fundamental dilemma - they are quite openly two faced about it - hoping presumably that some folk won't notice it.

The dilemma is this:

It is very easy to stir the masses by saying "We have too much government.  Officials have too much power.  National and local government costs too much.  We want freedom.  We suffer too much regulation".  This theme has a great many manifestations.

The other side of this argument is invoked as soon as misfortune occurs, somebody gets hurt in any way, a child is brutalised, an accident occurs, an organisation fails in its duty to make something safe.  Again the themes are endless.  The press always want an individual - other than the victim - to blame.  Somebody who "should have prevented it from happening.".

So do we want a nanny state, expensive to run, full of rules and regulations and corporate responsibilities?  Full of interfering social workers and accountable institutions.

Or do we want a cheap government, with limited powers, enabling low regulation and promising lots of personal freedom?  After all the wealthy can always sue if something goes wrong.

Next time you walk down the street and twist your ankle in a hole in the pavement do you blame yourself for voting-in a national and local government that is so impoverished that it can't do its job properly?  Or are you just philosophical about it and be grateful that you have the freedom to avoid twisting you ankle in other holes?

A simplified debate for sure.  And it ignores the dead-wood and inefficiencies of regulators. Personally I would prefer a society that is somewhere between the two.  But much of the press, headed by the Mail of course, cheerfully argues both stances sometimes in adjacent columns and presumes we do not notice.

Anyway rant over.  Feel better for that. Back to painting my bathroom.

Donuk

That is well argued but does not I think apply to all newspapers, and of course a newspaper is also about reviews, sport, the arts, recipes and other 'entertainments' too.

Bruce

The newspaper has evolved from a genuine bringer of new news into a conveyor of entertainment and alarmist twaddle - to sell newspapers!

It is testament to the illogical nature of us humans and the desire to cling onto the traditional, that newspapers continue to sell in sufficient quantities to make their production financially viable.

John.

First of all, in the interests of full disclosure, I must declare an interest here. I was a journalist, and I still dabble part time.

The newspapers here in the UK may often be hypocritical and - let's be honest - a bit sordid and sensationalist, but ours is also perhaps the most competitive, vibrant and diverse newspaper market to be found anywhere in the world. Now that Uncle Rupe's wings have been clipped to an extent, this is perhaps even more true.

Every day in the newsagent you can find a broad range of papers to suit every taste and political viewpoint, from "The Morning Star" on the communist Left through to the "Daily Mail" on the Right.

Our Press may be scurrilous on occasion, but it is also - subject to proprietorial interference of course - one of the freest and most independent in the world.

A vibrant and free Press is a cornerstone of healthy democracy and long may the newspapers survive (although some of them may not do for much longer).

John, newspapers are becoming less viable, at least in their current form.

The Guardian and Observer lose a million pounds a week between them. The Indy titles lose money hand over fist. So does The Times, with the Sunday Times probably breaking even. The Tele titles probably make a profit. The Sun and the Mail titles are very profitable. The Mirror group gets by thanks to years of cost-cutting and cross-subsidy, as do The Express titles.

The Metro and Evening Standard are both profitable, and point to one possible future for newspapers but their (free) distribution model s not easily replicable on a national level.

I think The Observer will be the first to go (although it may survive online), followed quickly by The People. I hate to see newspapers close but I think it is inevitable.

Agree with this Kevin despite what I wrote above.

Jason

Given today's news, it'll be interesting to see if there is a spike in paper sales tomorrow.

I know from a couple of friends who still work in The Street of Shame that everyone is working super-fast to get big fat issues together (although ALL the papers will have been preparing for this for some time and much of the copy will have already been written, just as will have been for other international figures, such as THe Queen, the DoE, Mandela, etc).

We'll see, I think the timing may turn out to have been wrong for the papers. Had the news broken 6 or 7pm ish rather than midday, the broadcast media wouldn't have had time to get their act together. As it is the papers are facing the task of moving the story on, with it having been all over every platform for around twenty hours....

Doesn't stop me predicting good things for her Maily Telegraph and Express cheerleaders.

Chris

Last paper bought was about 4 years ago, Daily mail, only purchased that as it had a free CD of the Noel Gallagher teenage cancer trust gig at the Royal Albert Hall with some excellent tracks on it, in particular Paul Weller's 'The Butterfly Collector'. Other than that I have never bothered with papers for years. Working in the nuclear power industry and seeing how far from the truth their published articles are on nuclear power I'm sure reports on all other issues are equally distorted. A few tenuous facts gathered and then twisted into making an article that fits it's political view and will sell the paper. Just my opnion.

Ken

Can't remember when I last bought one. It would have most likely been for someone else. The media in general seem to be a self perpetuating closed system. I don't need a window into any of that nonsense.