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...
Sometimes the tech industry bubble produces hilarious comments...
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
> 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.
Hm.
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