[manmanic]

The only newspaper I would miss is The Economist - global, comprehensive, opinionated (for good or bad), analysis in depth. But I won't have to miss it, since The Economist is doing very well, probably for precisely the same reasons that so many people like me would miss it...

[mdasen]

It could be that the news industry is getting split in two. On the one hand, there is up-to-date breaking news where all that matters is how fast you can get it out. Prose, spelling, sometimes even accuracy can be sacrificed to get it out faster. On the other hand, there's in-depth news and commentary like the Economist does. These are things that can be a week late, they can take their time, they can make something truly good because people don't read it to be informed about the latest thing, but to get really informed about the important stuff.

Where this leaves many papers is unknown. In the age before 24-hour cable news and the internet, the New York Times could be both good and in-depth and fast. However, the NYTimes will always be behind what I can get from any number of other sources today. They still have good analysis many times, but it isn't the Economist and it isn't the speed of internet news.

Eh, maybe I'm completely off base, but that's why I too still read the Economist while not being big on papers.

[biohacker42]

The Economist is doing well I believe, as is the Atlantic monthly.

People are willing to pay for quality opinion.

People are also willing to pay for late breaking news from the AP and Bloomberg.

In addition to the option of paying for late breaking news, TV and radio both give it away for free.

The papers are just middle men. They add nothing of value to the AP feed that they just regurgitate.

And their editorial work is not anywhere near as good as that of the Economist or the Atlantic.

They add nothing of value.

[lliiffee]

It is oversimplistic to say that papers add nothing of value. Surely you admit that the NYT, Wash. Post, and WSJ do original investigative research? Others papers sometimes do this also, although this seems to be decreasing. Everytime I visit my hometown in flyover country, I am frightened by how worthless the local paper has become. But there was a time, not long ago, when that paper had a staff in most major cities around the world. I assume that we are simply missing stories that would otherwise have gotten broken with more feet on the ground. (We don't realize we're missing them since we are missing them...)

Maybe the economist et al. are adding staff, but I suspect there are simply many fewer total investigative journalists, and so less investigative journalism. Maybe if the Chicago tribune hadn't cut so much, they would have broken the Blagojevich story instead of the FBI?

[anamax]

> Maybe if the Chicago tribune hadn't cut so much, they would have broken the Blagojevich story instead of the FBI?

The Trib did break the Blago story - the FBI wanted to keep it under wraps for a while because they didn't have all the goods. The Trib wanted to sell papers today.

The Trib has had decades to address Chicago corruption. They didn't do it when they had lots more resources, so it's silly to think that they'd do it now if they still had those resources.

[biohacker42]

The problem is exactly as you describe.

The papers could not find a good way to monetize the valuable investigative journalism and so they've cut it, and cut it and cut it.

[smanek]

Foreign Affairs (by the Council on Foreign Relations) is great too, if you like The Economist. It goes even more in depth.

And I like the NYTimes, just for their investigative journalism and op-eds (except Krugman ;-)). Exposing the warrantless wiretapping fiasco a few years back bought them a lifetime of goodwill from me.

[maurycy]

The Economist is the only paper I subscribe to, actually. Other ones, like Financial Times, I pick sometimes.