[silvestrov]

I think that in the old days people read newspapers and magazines because there was no other way to spend time in a bus/subway/train/waiting_room without engaging with other people.

So newspapers were entertainment (and status signals) to a much higher degree than journalists wants to admit.

Being informed was only a small part of the job that reading a newspaper did.

This is why Facebook could take over such a large amount of ad spending while it is still correct that only a very small part of time on Facebook is reading "real news".

https://cdn.baekdal.com/_img/2017/spotify4.png

[morkalork]

I don't remember news papers being a status symbol exactly, what I remember is that it was rare for a household to have more than one subscription. Multiple magazines, sure, but not newspapers. I remember categorizing my friend's parents by their choices. "This is a National Post household" or Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail.

[2big2fail_47]

the categorizing shows how different newspaper signal a certain world view. They can also signal wealth, class and a political view. so i think they are very much status symbols

[prepend]

> I don't remember news papers being a status symbol exactly

How many people have told you they subscribe to the NYTimes?

Even now, it comes up quite a bit.

But in the olden days of people reading the paper on the train, it was a topic of conversation much more. How many papers one subscribed to, which one, etc etc.

[tomjen3]

Books have been available for a long time and they also have quite a high status - so unless there was something else to it, why wouldn't most people be reading books?