[hitonagashi]

To me, reading the news is a very important part of my day. I always feel slightly uncomfortable when reading Guardian/Telegraph, almost certainly because the Times aligns with my political spectrum much closer.

The cost is worth the fact that I find the articles much more...enjoyable(I'm not entirely sure that's the best word!).

Connection problems aside, I have been satisfied with the service. If I hadn't been a Times reader before, I don't think there's anything there that would persuade me to pay for it, but to me, the cost is worth it.

[retree]

I also find that the World News section of the Times is second to none (in terms of depth), and yes, that includes the BBC.

[pix30]

But you have to pay Murdoch to read it.

[lwhi]

The Times definitely preaches to the choir.

My main problem with the paper is the fact that many of its news articles are enthused with a relatively large dollop of opinion - and quite often the opinion that's being touted, specifically aligns with points of view which are directly beneficial to Rupert Murdoch's business aims.

His media properties do his bidding on a regular basis; the blatant conflict of interests on display, regularly disgusts me.

[TheFro]

aligns with my political spectrum much closer.

So you want to continue to read content from a media outlet that has an agenda from a particular political perspective AND you consider this an important part of your day.

I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with your methods of thinking. Doesn't this make you blind to anything else out there?

[nl]

I think it's honest of him to say that.

I'm not sure what your political views are, but if you are left-leaning, how much Fox News do you watch? If you tend towards the right then do you read The Guardian and/or HuffPost?

[alexyoung]

I thought The Times was meant to be slightly right, but their coverage seems more balanced in recent years. It's more an image than an overall agenda, given that their journalists have their own views that sometimes conflict.