[themoonbus]

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]

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]

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]

It almost reads as if the person to whom you reply wants their own personal biases reinforced.

Hm.

[52-6F-62]

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]

Both are doing fine financially.