Newspaper subscription

[ChpBstrd]

A mainstay of financial advice is to cut out subscriptions, and to instead use the internet to get information and entertainment for free. However, the last few years have all but convinced me that quality journalism (investigations, not republishing famous people’s Twitter feeds) is important. There is simply no other way to forge agreement on the facts, uncover local corruption, or make society function.

An acquaintance just messaged to say he sold all his stocks and anticipates a civil war because the election outcome means we are certain to descend into Communism and live like people in the Soviet Union, East Germany, or Cuba. He says he looks forward to killing people in this war. Where does he get his news? Twitter and YouTube. He had all sorts of material to cite as evidence- all social media.

Quite frankly I don’t want to be deluded like that. Yet I can also observe that the people who believe everything the algorithms tell them don’t know they are misinformed. Therefore, I could be misinformed just like my acquaintance - just in a different way - and not know it.

CONS TO SUBSCRIBING

$35 per month. $420 per year. $10,500 in savings required to support this spending in retirement per 4% rule.

Quality journalism (at the national level) can be found for free on some ad-supported internet platforms. See https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

There’s a case to be made for a low information diet, rather than even a quality information diet.

What if free library books could replace time spent online?

A physical newspaper creates lots of trash / physical waste.

PROS TO SUBSCRIBING

I read the paper at a relative’s house today and it was full of useful info about local elections, tensions in my city’s police department, local business expansions where I might apply, local events, and planned bridge construction projects on my commute, for example. I realized despite the hours I spend online, I am situationally unaware. Plus it was enjoyable.

Given that I’m the kind of person who is hungry for information, I’m going to either read the paper or the internet. Subscribing to a quality information source is like paying more for veggies instead of fast food.

I want to reduce my screen time, which is running over 3h per day (a hair on fire emergency IMO). Going analog could wean me off of this bad habit. Perhaps if I was confident about being informed, reading the paper for an hour a week could help me save many hours of lost time on my phone. I think FOMO on current events drives much of my internet addiction. Plus, the paper is not as addictive as online media / social media (see The Social Dilemma and many other sources).

If print advertising is less effective than targeted online ads, then by switching to print I could in theory reduce the effect of ads on my spending, offsetting some of the damage from the subscription.

If quality information leads to quality decisions, and misinformation leads to bad decisions (e.g. my tinfoil hatted acquaintance who thinks the apocalypse is here) then one’s choice of information sources could determine a lot of one’s life outcomes. If better info led me to make a better decision on my career, real estate, investing, and real-world social engagement or if it led me to feel less pessimistic overall, then the subscription could quietly pay for itself many times over.

If I’m not paying for my info, someone else is.

What do you all think about the concept of paying for journalism?

[Cranky]

I subscribe to the print edition of the NYT and happily read most of it every day. There really is no replacement for in depth journalism and I am willing to pay for it.

Although I agree that it’s not the most eco friendly thing in the world, I reuse newspaper pretty often.

[reeshau]

I agree that, for many places, there is no substitute for local journalism:  there isn't enough interest / citizen journalists / activists to provide full coverage.  Maybe there isn't enough everywhere.

You could satisfy the support for journalism with a digital subscription, although that doesn't reduce screen time.

You could satisfy your ecological concerns by reading the library's copy of the newspaper.  You could help support both the journalism and the library's mission by donating the equivalent of your subscription to the library.  This could also add some exercise / social interaction / change of scenery to your day.

[jamesbond007]

NPR is free. But I donate $15 a month to my local station, and it is worth it. Just because you get a newspaper subscription doesn't mean you get the right information. If you know you are reading an opinion piece, you should know you that it is the writer's opinion. If you think it is news, then you will end up in the same situation as your friend depending on which newspaper you subscribe to. To your point, you do get the advantage of less targeted advertising and less screen time going with print.

[Catbert]

Well, I may not be a good one to ask.  I am almost 70 and when I was a child everyone subscribed to the newspaper.  Even on welfare and food comdoities we always subscribed to a newspaper.

I currently get the print version of our local paper, plus a Sunday print version of the LA Times (electronic every day).  Earlier this year I added an electronic version of the NYT.  I really need to ratchet back, but where? 

[habanero]

I have digital subscription to NYT and  their crossword. I struggle to find  money better spent. I also have digital to a National newspaper here and i could do without but this is one area i like to support.

[englishteacheralex]

I have a digital subscription to the NYT and also to The Atlantic. I kinda want to pay for Slate but sometimes it's so sensational/clickbait-y I never quite get around to shelling out for it. Plus, my views are more conservative than my subscriptions would suggest, and Slate irritates me sometimes.

Yes, I agree that paying for news is money well spent. But I could easily put about three times as much as I do into subscriptions--I want to read everything!--and have to exercise some restraint.

[maizefolk]

All this past year I've been debating a paper subscription to my local paper. They have done great reporting during COVID, local protests, and local riots, which I benefit from from follow their reporters tweeting/live streaming but which I don't pay anything to support. So a subscription would be less about getting additional information and more an investment in the paper continuing to exist.

Right now I pay for the Washington Post's digital version which I enjoy (though I think I'd read more with a physical paper). But national reporting is much better covered. Local journalism really seems to be in danger of drying up and blowing away in many parts of the country.

[katsiki]

Have you considered the Economist?

Also, what can you get through your library?  Not sure about newspapers but many libraries provide electronic access to magazines.

[foghorn]

If you are still working, is it something you could get the company to pay for?

I have had a WSJ subscription for years and I have never really had a problem with my manager(s) approving the expense.  Across their entire budget, a newspaper subscription is rarely worth the conversation.  The better ones actually like the idea of their employees being informed.

[jeninco]

We also have a print subscription to the New York Times. When we're done reading it (or at the end of the day) we put it out front, and swap with neighbors for a 1-day old copy of the local rag.

I've been asking for the subscription as a gift, because I believe in supporting actual journalism. Even if I had to pay for it myself, I'd keep getting it, for that reason.

(Also, I like the puzzles...)

[Cranky]

Also, our local paper went out of business last year, and while it was very local, they did do important local issues. I miss having it around.

[cool7hand]

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Here's my approach.

In the current environment, if I had to subscribe to a newspaper, I'd not subscribe to just one newspaper because they're all partisan. I'd subscribe to at least two. Probably the NYT and WSJ.

But I'd rather save the money.

My Mustachian approach is to cast a wide net and then research inconsistencies. Daily I read the headlines from the Guardian, Fox, WSJ, and NYT or WP (interchangeable). On more contentious issues, I might see what the fringe thinks at Quiellette, the Atlantic, and even Breitbart. For those newspapers behind a paywall, you can usually read headlines and a few lines. From headlines alone, you can tell whether various news sources agree.

If the news sources don't agree and I care about the subject, it's time to research. That might mean going to the library, finding entire newspaper articles that would otherwise be behind a firewall but have been shared more broadly such as via Real Clear Investigations, finding podcasts with subject matter experts, reading a book, etc.

This way I'm not spending money but only time, and I'm spending time on something I enjoy: learning about topics I care to learn about.

Food for thought.

[ChpBstrd]

Update: The acquaintance who sold everything in his 401k because his YouTube/Twitter “news” sources said a Biden win would be the end of capitalism is now wondering if his sell order was executed Friday or today now that the Dow is up over 4%.

He may have paid a heavy price for free information.

[jamesbond007]

He may have paid a heavy price for free information.

"He may have paid a heavy price for anecdotal information." FTFY. Free doesn't mean it's bad nor cost $ doesn't mean it's good. Case in point, NPR. It is free. They don't peddle fake news, hoax, and conspiracy theories.

[ChpBstrd]

He may have paid a heavy price for free information.

"He may have paid a heavy price for anecdotal information." FTFY. Free doesn't mean it's bad nor cost $ doesn't mean it's good. Case in point, NPR. It is free. They don't peddle fake news, hoax, and conspiracy theories.

NPR is very good, I agree. They deserve some portion of everyone's information diet. However, they are biased in a way I agree with, so it feels a lot like the other echo chambers I am drawn to. The idea is to NOT confirm my existing biases and lock them into idiot-level certitude. I'd like to read/hear something challenging on a regular basis.

Also, there is waaaaay too much coverage of celebrities, pop culture, and touchy-feely shit. Some obscure musician dying outweighs nearly everything else, and if a little girl uses social media to reunite with her puppy a nuclear war could be going on and NPR wouldn't cover it.

[maizefolk]

I have my criticisms of NPR, but I really do like the little-girl-reunites with a puppy stuff. Or more bleakly a recent story that was just a guy who was dying on cancer, decided he didn't want to spend his last days lying at home hiding from COVID, and recorded himself walking around a lake listening to various birds. If one of those is on when nuclear war is announced cut in with a brief announcement (like a the national weather service alerts) and then get back to it. It'll be better the the turner networks doomsday video they had planned to play under the same circumstances.

More seriously, I have noticed many for the national NPR hosts have gotten a lot more political on the air themselves in an off-putting way that makes it sound like they assume all their listeners share the exact same political views. It has made me listen to them less than in the past. But I still think it is an important institution for our society, and more years than not I'll donate to my local public radio affiliate.* And I still really enjoy some of the NPR podcasts like Planet Money.

*Of course the problem with listening to them less is that I miss the pledge drives more often.

[Tempname23]

NPR is free. But I donate $15 a month to my local station, and it is worth it. Just because you get a newspaper subscription doesn't mean you get the right information. If you know you are reading an opinion piece, you should know you that it is the writer's opinion. If you think it is news, then you will end up in the same situation as your friend depending on which newspaper you subscribe to. To your point, you do get the advantage of less targeted advertising and less screen time going with print.

I listen to NPR, I also listen to Foxnews. As I see it NPR very rarely reports anything but a left point of view. Foxnews is surely biased to the right, but they do have several more straight reporters that counter their opinion writers. Foxnews also brings on my many more guests that are on the left for point counter point discussions. NPR has more just human interest (non political) stories that give it a wider interest range.

[LaineyAZ]

Like many here, I pay for a subscription to my local newspaper.  They won a Pulitzer prize in 2018, which reinforces my support. 

You can get a hybrid subscription:  digital access every day and a paper subscription for weekends only.  That would provide you with the info you want, support local journalism, and let you relax with a paper copy sometimes.

I'm not on social media so for the most part this is where I find out about local events, including local politics which informed my decisions on this year's ballot.  The paper also focuses on important longer-term regional issues like water usage, or the current state of our infrastructure, or proposed civic projects.

I'm glad you brought this up because a) Americans like to brag about our free press but in reality it's not "free"; b) our neighbor to the south, Mexico, has had at least 10 journalists killed this year.  I think most of us assume that journalists will always be there to keep an eye on politicians, or companies, or schools, or general issues that need to be addressed, but unfortunately I think the state of journalism is very fragile today.
If it continues to shrink we are left with only opinion blogs which is not a substitute.  Real journalism is a powerful guardrail for those who would want to conduct their affairs in the dark (hence the murders of journalists around the world.)  So I say, Yes, get a subscription.

[havregryn]

I have a digital subscription to the NYT and also to The Atlantic. I kinda want to pay for Slate but sometimes it's so sensational/clickbait-y I never quite get around to shelling out for it. Plus, my views are more conservative than my subscriptions would suggest, and Slate irritates me sometimes.

Yes, I agree that paying for news is money well spent. But I could easily put about three times as much as I do into subscriptions--I want to read everything!--and have to exercise some restraint.

I read The Atlantic on the Readly app. If you don't know that, I found it to be the best value for money thing in the world when it comes to reading content (only possible contender is my kids' Epic! subscription). I love magazines.
Check it out (this is a referral link but I don't think it actually works haha as I referred a lot of friends because I loved the app and never got anything for free, but still I recommend it as I love it, not bitter about the fake advertising at all, lol. It could be that just the referred person gets a month free: https://get.readly.com/Wc-Zm6fPBfccAE4W

On topic, I just recently subscribed to the print edition of the main newspaper here in Luxembourg. I really started noticing downsides of getting my info from online outlets and I think it's really worth it.
If we were in some kind of a pants on fire situation, OK, then no, but for a normal frugal middle class budget I think it's possible to make room for a nice paper subscription.

[bigblock440]

One of the cons is that you never really know if it's quality and factual.  A local paper is a good place to read about local news, but then they write an article about something you're familiar with or were even at the interview and realize they took quite a bit of liberty with what was said/happened, what gives their other articles any more credibility? 

National level papers I don't see a use for personally subscribing though, anything newsworthy will be reported everywhere eventually, including your local paper.

[ChpBstrd]

One issue with NPR is you will never get decent business / economics coverage. The target audience is not investors - more like humanities majors living paycheck to paycheck. I almost pierced my own eardrum with a pencil in 2019 when I heard them giving a dumbed-down 2-minute explanation of the inverted yield curve, to people who didn't know what a bond was or that the government sells them.

Supporting NPR and subscribing to the WSJ sounds like a good balance, except (1) you'll still get no local news, and (2) you're giving money to Rupert Murdoch, who makes any reasonable person's top-5 list of probable antichrists.

National level papers I don't see a use for personally subscribing though, anything newsworthy will be reported everywhere eventually, including your local paper.

This is a solid point, and another strike against NPR. Reuters and AP articles are basically free online, so the "premium info" I'd like is local journalism and economic reporting. There doesn't seem to be any single source providing that and you get nothing for free.

[reeshau]

One issue with NPR is you will never get decent business / economics coverage. The target audience is not investors - more like humanities majors living paycheck to paycheck. I almost pierced my own eardrum with a pencil in 2019 when I heard them giving a dumbed-down 2-minute explanation of the inverted yield curve, to people who didn't know what a bond was or that the government sells them.

Supporting NPR and subscribing to the WSJ sounds like a good balance, except (1) you'll still get no local news, and (2) you're giving money to Rupert Murdoch, who makes any reasonable person's top-5 list of probable antichrists.

National level papers I don't see a use for personally subscribing though, anything newsworthy will be reported everywhere eventually, including your local paper.

This is a solid point, and another strike against NPR. Reuters and AP articles are basically free online, so the "premium info" I'd like is local journalism and economic reporting. There doesn't seem to be any single source providing that and you get nothing for free.

I don't think the lack of local coverage is univerally true.  Michigan Radio, for example, has a local news staff that covers local business, politics, and other things.  (and wins awards for it)

[startingsmall]

I subscribe to the NY Times, Washington Post, and my local newspaper (all online, not print). All are worthwhile to me and I feel like they provide a valuable service.

[Kris]

We subscribe to Washington Post, NPR, and our local paper. Because, as WaPo says, democracy dies in darkness.

[Khaetra]

I probably have too many, but I enjoy reading all of them:

Wapo, NYT, The Atlantic and my used-to-be local paper (all digital), The New Yorker, Time and Vanity Fair I get in print.

[OtherJen]

We have online subscriptions to the WaPo, NY Times, and Bridge Michigan. I think it’s time to add a delivery subscription to the local paper that covers my suburb and the one next door. Maybe also a delivery of the Sunday Detroit Free Press. That was a ritual in our house when I was a kid.

[dcheesi]

One of the cons is that you never really know if it's quality and factual.  A local paper is a good place to read about local news, but then they write an article about something you're familiar with or were even at the interview and realize they took quite a bit of liberty with what was said/happened, what gives their other articles any more credibility? 

National level papers I don't see a use for personally subscribing though, anything newsworthy will be reported everywhere eventually, including your local paper.

As it happens, WaPo is the closest thing to a "local" paper here, so it's a no-brainer for us to sub to that (electronically). For truly local info, I monitor a couple of local blogs and forums, where the quality is even more suspect than your average small town paper.

[ender]

I've debated getting a subscription to NYT just because of how often people link those stories.

But I don't read them often enough to feel like it's worth it.

[dcheesi]

I've debated getting a subscription to NYT just because of how often people link those stories.

But I don't read them often enough to feel like it's worth it.

Yeah, if I didn't already have a WaPo sub, I'd be tempted as well. As it is, I refuse to pay for both, and WaPo has my local-ish coverage, so...

[Catbert]

I've debated getting a subscription to NYT just because of how often people link those stories.

But I don't read them often enough to feel like it's worth it.

They regularly have "new reader" deals.  $1 or $2 a week for the first year.

[Sibley]

I subscribe to Washington Post. And thanks for the reminder, I've been meaning to subscribe to the local paper so did that. Online only.

[SwordGuy]

Subscribing to our local paper is just a cost of being a good citizen and keeping our government in line.  Worth every penny.

[blikeafox]

We get the NYT print edition on the weekend, and I really like how getting and reading a physical paper helps us to slow down and relax on the weekend. It also helps our kids interact with the news, which they don't do when we read online (mostly because we try not to be on screens in front of them). They ask what we are reading about, to explain graphs, etc.

Plus I feel like I come across stories I would miss online because an algorithm wouldn't guess I'm interested in them. We also support our local online journalism site, which is excellent.