Is there still a place for newspapers?

No. I use the free web sites for my news.

Yes, I'd defintely read "i" as it would be good to have a decent, unbiased broadbloid at this price.

Newspapers could improve their circulation by being less blatant about their political affiliations. The Independent needs to highlight that it does just this, the likes of the Guardian who firmly put themselves behind the Lib Dems need to be less blinkered.

I tend to get my news from the web, mostly because I spend all day in front of a computer. If I'm out and about I use various news apps on my phone to catch up. So, in answer to the question 'Will you read the new paper?', I will be saying; No.
Newspapers are great for burning, and make great kindling though, so the free ones always get put to use, especially in the winter!

I don't think so. I stopped buying papers in the 90's as they were full of sensationalist rubbish.

I like to sit on the train going to work and read my newspaper (yes, I've usually been lucky enough to get a seat).

I read small articles on the web, but I find using a screen to that degree a strain, and I prefer a piece of paper - but I am getting older.

Is there still a place for newspapers?

Theres still a place for the Independant (although I'm a bit nervous about the recent take over by the Russian gentleman).

The Telegraph,Times, Mail , Express and Sun - not so much.

Their planned & co-ordinated attack on Nick Clegg on the day of the second leaders debate during the general electon revealed them all as 5 heads of the same hydra - all working to same agenda.

Although i tend to get my news online i still would like to read a newspaper at breakfast. Unfortunately newspapers still force their political bias down our throats, so until that stops i can`t see me buying a newspaper in the forseeable future.

Newspapers offer the political balance so missing in much of radio or tv reporting - sure the various papers offer their own view of things but the the main stream media, the BBC and Sky remain so stuck with their own political agenda to be really a waste of time to watch or listen to. ITN does a good job of remaining on the fence - newspapers are vital in a so called free society.

Today's newspapers no longer give an impartial view of the news. Their view is the view of their proprietor or the political party that pulls their strings. News , even to the so called more intellectual newspapers seems to centre round the traumas and sexual exploits of little known and vaguely talented soap opera actresses and fashionable conjecture, based on what the public might find interesting, what might sell newspapers, but not on what is fact. Even the political commentators tend to concentrate on the sensational that might happen , rather than on the truth about what has already happened. Dependent on the reporter's political view, the reader is presented with imaginative conjecture dressed up as fact.

You could just as easily ask the same about C90 cassette tapes, VHS, the Commodore 64 and other such anachronisms.

Newspapers are increasingly irrelevant as people realise rather than being informed they are being force-fed opinions and agendas - and paying for the privilege.

No - they're all trash and out of date. I get tired of the political spin too, regardless whether it's the Guardian, Indy, Times, Mail etc. - they're all as bad as each other. The only 'added value' from a newspaper are things like crosswords. The extra editorial content over and above websites is usually padding anyway.

As for Sunday papers - what a waste of trees!

Newspapers should have been taken out of our society years ago when making money became more important to the newspapers than making accurate and unbiased news. most of the newspapers are owned and played off against eachother by Rupert Merdoch, the right wing supporter with his fingers in all the pies, playing them off like puppets on a string... whats more is newspapers are the sole cause of the second dip of this double dip resession... why? because they are the reason for the whole conceipt of a double dip recession. they announced the idea of a double dip recession when things were picking up and suddenly everyones worried and the system stalls... why? because it sells newspapers!!! yes thats right people the banks greed caused the first dip, the newspapers greed caused the second.

Everything points against newspapers:Rising paper costs;Lower circulation;The internet and search engines;improving electronic readers.With a competition that is more honest and doesn`t try to sensationalize everything and that provides the news you`re looking for,it`s inevitable that they`re ultimately doomed.One day -maybe in only 20 years time-these papers will be nothing more than websites offering links to the best news stories. It`s already happened for me-my local paper has doubled in price in the last 10 years,and I get more news-and more complete news-from this site than anywhere else.Less sleaze - I certainly won`t be sorry to see newspapers go!

I haven't bought a newspaper for many years and I won't be buying this one. I get all the news I need from the net.

I try to avoid much of the news on the BBC, though; the Left-wing bias gets a bit tedious.

It would take something incredibly revolutionary for me to pay for news. I have no trust in what any newspaper reports, it's all the same biased nonsense, or "celebrity" distraction nonsense.


When journalists start taking risks with their stories again, then I might start paying attention to them.
(I don't mean 'Look I'm in a Warzone' type risk, I mean risk their career over what they publish)

About time Britain did the same as the the US and many European countries and banned foreign owwnership of national media.

Why should anyone who has no stake in British society be able to exert any influence at all over our society and our politicians?

And why are our politicians so pathetically weak that they let them?

Unlike Rufus, I only ever read the Sunday papers.
Coffee, brekky in bed and Sunday paper with loads of supplements.
Rest of the week it's t'internet.

No it won't be any different because they will source the same old copy from the same old PA agency as all the others, long gone are the days of local correspondents.
Same old , same old drag and drop PA copy news, how on earth can this be "different".
Until newspapers learn to source their own material, the situation will be acceleration of the downhill one.

No I gave up buying or really reading newspapers a long time ago. I am losing interest in broadcast news also. Most is at least 50% sensationalised, conjecture, opinion & speculation not a report of factual news, ie. what someone knows actually has happened where and when. In a few instances why maybe appropriate beyond that I think its up to me to form my own opinions from fact not be told.

Metro!

best paper by a long way unbiased and free!
infact id rather pay the 20p for the metro and well if the others the sun, daily fail etc were free i would even pick them up

I read The Independent from its inception in 1986 until it completely lost its independent stance in 1990-91 due to biased reporting of the 2nd Gulf War (kicking Iraq out of Kuwait). Since then it's been the same as any other newspaper, peddling opinion dressed up as fact.

As this coincided with the development of the Internet as a source of quality information I think I've only purchased one single issue of any newspaper since (one in which my election to fellowship of the British Computer Society was announced, one does like a permanent record of such things!). Like an intelligence analyst I practice 'second source confirmation' - not trusting anything until heard from two unconnected sources (minimum), something I teach students.

Because of the net everyone knows that mainstream news is rigged and censored and manipulated by various government and private entities with agendas.

So why would we pay money for this??

Paying cash for propaganda would be a bit silly.
(The BBC license fee is quite enuf)

correction wouldnt* (20)

Not in my house, but my dad still gets a few of them for the crosswords. It's all second hand and biased anyway (the express 'polls' crack me up). T'internet means that I'm already aware of most of the things a national newspaper reports and have been for at least a day.

I cancelled the Daily Mail years ago, when it went up to 4p and I didn't have time to read it in any case! I would have thought a more compact newspaper would find a fairly large market. Good idea.

I would pay 20p for a good comic.

But for something masquerading as the truth...having been checked by the ruling classes and government joes before being released...na.

Didn't you mean to ask "Is this the end of the newspaper as we know it? Wayne & Colleen tell all in sensational gay Martian rabbit strictly invasion terror."

That's a clue to my answer.

Yes there is a place for papers not for reporting news because often the other sources beat them to it. They are there purely to be a mouthpiece for the wealthy magnates who own them, these people then have the ability to predjudice opinion and use this outlet to push their political agenda. How else would these increasingly wealthy company bosses and politicians get us to sympathise with them. They print a story or slant on the news which then gets repeated on TV or radio as truth.
Unfortunately many believe what they read and repeat these views and stories without question. The newspaper magnates know this. Very few of us have first hand experience of an actual story so have no other means of forming our opinions. In my experience I have been at a scene of a story three or four times, on every occasion the story was misreported. So I have doubts about what I read.
A very good example today is the fire service proposed strike on Nov 5th. If we think about it seriously we know these people are dedicated and put their lives on the line for the public regularly, so if they are thinking of withdrawing their service they must be very worried and annoyed and yet the papers don't tell the full story. It is biased, dramatised, half truth which then manages to get the public annoyed
Newspapers don't often bring us news but they distort the later discussion of a topic.

Have to say I agree with Scotty (#20)!
I love managing to grab a Metro in the morning. It covers the important news, and has a few quirky stories thrown in to make you smile in the morning.

Good ridance to all newspapers and their lies and spin.

No chance. I can get news from websites all over the worls,m including the excellent BBC.

I only buy ONE newspaper a week. that's the Saturday Mail. The main reason I buy it, is for the TV guide and for something to look at over the weekend.

PAY newspaper sites will not work. They are like libraries now. Not required any more.

I gave up buying newspapers in about 1979. I don't need a newspaper to tell me who to vote for, or which 'celebrity' is currently pregnant/having an affair/divorcing/whatever. I've always said that the papers worth reading I don't have the time to read, and the ones I have the time to read aren't worth reading.

It's about time people woke up to the manipulation of their behaviour by the mass media and started to think independently for themselves instead of following the crowd - but I really don't hold out much hope that this will happen.

If I was travelling on a train and wanted something to read, I MIGHT buy a paper, but otherwise, there is little point these days as I can get all the news I need free of charge over the net via my phone.

One of the things I often say is that one of the benefits of the internet is that it has made so much that used to cost money free and news is a prime example. As more and more people get tablet style computers that can be held in the hand like a paper, they will become irrelevant.

And as for all these 'free' papers that get shoved in your face by pushy foreigners every time you go near a station, what I want to know is this: who is paying for the cost of cleaning up after them? Get on a train at ten in the morning and they are awash with these things. There should be an environmental tax on papers.

I've not purchased a newspaper for years, why would I, they're a waste of money.

Personally I like to see VAT placed on newspaper, which unlike the heating and lighting, is not an essential item.

These days I only buy a weekly local newspaper to catch up with local issues. Even though, in my relatively ctime free part of the UK, the news is mainly about pets being rescued, the odd domestic punch-up and unlucky motorists caught speeding. The problem with the Nationals is that they are a platform for all the bleeding heart liberals, the politically correct and the musn't do it brigade. True some offer objective analysis, but in the end I don't really care because I determine my own views and do not follow the herd. TV/R4 is the other source of "headline" news for me but it has to be the BBC because I trust them. (See, I don't follow the herd). If I was forced to buy a newspaper, there is only one for those with common sense and that, of course, is the DT.

As has been pointed out, sensationalism and political bias ruined newspapers a long time ago. I prefer the BBC website, and several others, but beware - it's only relative to the bunkum in the newspapers. If one of them got their act together and reported the news properly and without bias I'd move back to the printed word.

"14. At 10:38am on 26 Oct 2010, Mrs Vee wrote:
I haven't bought a newspaper for many years and I won't be buying this one. I get all the news I need from the net."

"22. At 10:50am on 26 Oct 2010, ady wrote:
Because of the net everyone knows that mainstream news is rigged and censored and manipulated by various government and private entities with agendas.

So why would we pay money for this??"

I know a few "Conspiracy Theory" websites that'll be right up both your streets. In fact you 2 sound a lot like Scientologists, except they don't allow access to the internet.

10. At 10:33am on 26 Oct 2010, 24 years and counting wrote:
"You could just as easily ask the same about C90 cassette tapes, VHS, the Commodore 64 and other such anachronisms."

An excellent analogy. You could ask the same about vinyl LPs though, where the sound quality is vastly superior to MP3 etc. Plus you get the free backing sounds of a Rolls Royce crunching up a gravel driveway!

I wouldn't say that there was anything particularly rubbish about the medium (recycled paper), which in austere times to come can be cut into strips and used as lavatory paper in the outside privvy, but it is the contents and editorial strategy that lets newspapers down. It seems that most newspapers have anticipated future bog-roll usage and already smeared waste material of their very own all over the sheets. . .

I'd like to think of myself as fair, and, when it comes to newspapers I believe the people who fill the pages of them with scratchings should also pay for them, not the person who picks one up, scans, sighs and discards. Count the adverts in an average weekend tome and you are looking at several thousands. My local rag does the same thing for nothing, but somehow a newspaper owner thinks I should pay something for the trash.

Of course none of this is really free. Respond to an advert and you are paying the newspaper too; send an email and your ISP, who is probably not truly independent, has links with the media empire somewhere. You see the media has it all stitched up.

You get the propaganda build up, the hype over something 'new', you even buy a ticket for the big event, or pay to view, or watch it via subscription and you are funding the BIG media machine. So why should the ramblings of a tycoon cost us anything; why should we pay anything to watch the hype; why should we have to fork out big money to get a fix on entertainment which is largely a huge disappointment?

Look at the market place and realise just what a monopoly it is. Now stretch that to almost everything you touch everyday, and you realise just what a stitch up this all is.

Mr Murdoch should be paying us....

Newspapers had their day and the time to go is long past. They created their own downfall. They only print crud and sensationalist junk. Good riddance. The Dandy and Beano comics were better quality publications.

Frankly I cannot remember when I last brought a newspaper.
From my own personal experience as someone on the receiving end of a (local) newspaper's misrepresentation and mis-contextualisation (and having failed three times to galvanise the PCC to respond positively); I've come to realise newspapers can print what they want, when they want, with complete impunity. I want to read unbiased and accurate facts, not the fiction that most newspapers think is necessary to sell copy.
To search for consensus on any story requires the internet.

For everyone now boasting that they are all modern and get their news on-line: do you not think that there is just a small issue with on-line news in that the standards of journalism it aspires to have been set by the paper news: somewhere between the gutter and the drain?

No I won't be buying "i" as I read my local newspaper everyday which also covers national and international matters. If I require any more information I look at the web.

I think it is important to support local businesses so I don't buy any of the national broadsheets or tabloids and don't see the need for another newspaper to line the pockets of foreign owners.

No, not with this biased right wing press and ownership by foreigners

I worked 42 years in the provincial newspaper industry. Don't compare the national press with the provincial press. The national press will always have a role. The standard of journalism and photo journalism of our national press is second to none. At the same time they must watch their cover prices. People will only pay so much as they always have the web and 24 hour rolling news to fall back on.
As for the provincial evening newspaper my view is not so rosy. A great deal of work goes into producing them yet they are not value for money. Much of the journalism is second rate and the news content not relevant. Once an evening newspaper's circulation drops below 40k sale a night then a decision should be made to make it a weekly.
This opens another can of worms for newspaper managements as in my view the management of a daily newspaper is totally different to that of a weekly newspaper. Certainly I see little or no future for provincial evening papers I am extremely sorry to say.
Many have been totally wrecked by bad management.

If someone was to print a newspaper with news in it and not these magazines/fanzines/recipe books/lifestyles are wasted on the living/holiday brochures that seem to be cluttering up the place then possibly, just possibly.

#42 Christopher Styles

News whether in a newspaper or on the web is only as good as the people who write it.

Newspaper suffer from political bias, all news web sitea are also biased but can be browsed in bulk to reduce the inconvenience of a fool’s message.
Newspapers also suffer from being at least 1 day late, and attracting arrogant, self opinionated scribblers who “explain to stupid” (the reader - who pays their wages) what they think the story is about. Their task is to report, not embed, not interpret, but report!
When I need an inexperienced left leaning scruff explaining to me what a war means, wehat a tsunami is, why this politician is lying and that one not and the bigoted urchin gets it the wrong way round, it is time to move to hot malted milk and bed!

I can`t remember the last time I purchased/read a newspaper.
I get all the news that interests me online.

I simply don't have time to sit and read newspapers. I dip in and out of the news when I can. With 24 hour news channels and radio it's much more convenient to listen to it. Also, with screaming headlines about Wayne Rooney and Cheryl Cole I am put off. I want NEWS not endless gossip about people in whom I have no interest or desire. Perhaps if this new paper was to print in txt spk thn prhps yung peeps mite be intrstd. Dout it tho.

Yes, two reasons

1) i can get local news that does not appeard on line and
2) I need newspapers to light my woodburner. (I even pinch them from my neighbours' recycling.

It is interesting that some of our most extreme contributors claim only to use the web as a source of news. I find internet news, including the BBC, too brief, to sketchy and written to appeal to teenagers. It's apparent lack of bias is actually a lack of substance. I read papers at the weekend to catch up on the news after it has been digested a bit, but the parts I enjoy most are the columnists. The parts I hate most are the hundreds of square feet of adverts masquerading as light news items, cookery, holiday guides and so on. Maybe "i" will appeal - if it has the TV guide.
My main sources of news information are investigative programmes, such as Panorama, You and Yours, the Media Show, and the excellent File on 4, where you get real depth and real dirt and real understanding of issues.
So much better than the 'Daily Wayne, Cheryl, Cure for all Cancers, EEC to ban babies, petrol to rise £10' newspapers.
For example, if you really want to know where your NI money is disappearing to, you won't find it in the news papers and certainly not on the internet, listen to this https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vcpfb/File_on_4_Foundation_Hospitals_An_Acute_Crisis/ 'i' would have to be pretty good to beat it for depth.

I've read reports of the decline of newspapers on and off for almost 40 years. The common assumption is that as most young people have never got into the habit of reading national papers, and have the attention span of a goldfish (3 seconds) then the national papers are doomed.

Most young people that I know buy papers are a) young men and b) only want it for the sport. If it wasn't for the weekly tele-supplements the sales would be even lower.

Papers that only go on about 'celebs' are also suffering, and rightly so. I buy a 'serious' paper and when I collect it I scan the headlines which I always find amusing. Such as 'world disaster, UN response, world leaders arrange conference' etc appears in all papers except the Star which has 'Jordan has row with someone' and a picture of a girl in her underwear on the cover!

Anyway, as long as it doesn't have a picture of wayne 'Shrek' rooney and coleeeeeen on the front page I might be interested.

I hope it has tapped into a niche market, wish it well & hope it will succeed.

8. At 10:31am on 26 Oct 2010, Mike Hall wrote:
Newspapers offer the political balance so missing in much of radio or tv reporting
----------------------

Political balance!! You are joking, aren't you? However I hardly think the BBC and Sky can be put in the same catagory. I realise that those of a right wing persuasion are vociferous in their condemnation of the BBC at present but in most cases how the news is viewed is often a reflection of the views of the viewer than the reporter. This presure on the BBC is deliberate on the part of the present government in an effort to curb critism. All very devious, but you only have to read Lord McAlpine's opinion of Cameron's work at Central Office to see that it is highly possible. Lord McAlpine is hardly a raving lefty.We underestimate the deviousness of politicians at our peril. Being dependant on income from the public is far more likely to lead to unbiased programmes and reporting than relying on private sector businesses and wealthy individuals for finance.
The reporters employed by the BBC come from many different backgrounds, Can you imagine the headlines if Nick Robinson had been leader of the Young Communists instead of the Conservatives

Yes - Yes - Yes
There are more lies told on the www than
in any newspaper.

Rupert Murdock put it best.He`s not in the bussiness of selling dead trees.

There is always a place for quality newspapers like The Telegraph, Guardian, Times and the Independant but rubbish like the Daily Mail, Sun, Mirror and Express which do nothing but promote second rate celebs and gossip would not be missed

A majority of newspapers are nothing more than sensationalist writers peddling a combination of misery, filth & personal political bias.

A combination of appealing to the lowest common denominator, coupled with a desire to spread the political opinion of the elite make it one of the most unpleasant & dishonest reading materials to date.

If the public didn't believe this rubbish it would almost be funny.

This romantic notion, that the news is about publishing the truth & that the journalists are "Guardians of the truth!" - died at about the time reporter's started simply harassing celebrities, paparazzi photos & publishing lies to sell papers.

Ironic really, the only news outlet which seems to be abiding by these principles is Wikileaks, who has been branded as "traitors".

Newspapers are full of untruths.

Most "news" papers just recycle press releases, and do nothing in the way of fact checking.

Investigative journalism is dead. Unless it involves illegal phone tapping.

I look forward to the day when newspapers are history.

The Jan Moir scandal, and the appalling lack of action by the PCC shows that newspapers and their crony "regulators" cannot be trusted.

No - 20p a day is a significant slice of my pension.

Why would anyone buy a newspaper ?

You can get all of the real news you need from Private Eye weeks, months and in some cases years before the mainstream press decide to publish it as well as plenty of news that the mainstream press ignore or try to cover up.

The Lockerbie bombing is a perfect example; if you read the newspapers you could be forgiven for thinking that Al Magrahi was responsible for the bombing whereas anyone reading Private Eye would know that there is no evidence to suggest he had anything to do with it and that all of the available evidence points towards a group of Palestinians being funded by the Iranians to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 as retaliation for the USS Vincennes shooting down Iran Air Flight 655.

If the newspapers are willing to conspire with the UK and US governments to cover up the worst terrorist attack in this countries history then why should we believe anything else they write ?

Yes ,there is still a place for newspapers.
I've switched from the Times ,because to much emphasis was being put on its web site, to the Telegraph.

No to the new paper. However, I'll continue to buy the Guardian and my local paper and scan the web for alternative interpretations of events. The death of print both in newspapers and books is exaggerated. The CSR is a case in point. How many view or listen to the headlines on the cuts and then read fuller reports in the newspapers where there is more depth (regardless of the politics of the paper).

Yesterdays news in tomorrows fish and chips wrapper.

If I am honest our daily paper is purchased to fill in the few minutes between me getting up and eating my breakfast while the wife always turns directly to the puzzle page. As for the rest - we treat it with the contempt it deserves. Newspapers in general are obsessed with celebrity and gossip and buying any of them is just a habit that we should break.
My computer gives me unbiased news coverage and it costs next to nothing.

If it were an actual newspaper, ie: full of news rather than slanted political spin dependent on the wishes of the people who own the paper and not full of celebrity gossip and stories of whats happening on reality tv shows, then I would consider reading it.

I think there will always be a place for newspapers though I doubt if a quality paper can be produced for 20p. Thank God I can read German as I can read the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). THAT´s a quality newspaper - little advertising and long, intelligent articles.

Think of the Trees!!!! Why won't people please think of the Trees!!!

Further to my earlier comment. Our paper of choice switched from the Mail to the Express during the Falklands War. The mail got a tad too jingoistic.

However, for more years than I care to remember the Express has been obsessed with Princess Diana. It became a running joke at our newsagent that every single issue held her image somewhere.

Maybe the Express most closely reflects my political point of view but writing these comments has made me seriously consider cancelling our daily fix.

In principal yes, there is a place for portable easy to digest journalism, to read on your morning commute or over breakfast, sounds like a bloody good idea to me.

Now if only there was a news paper worth reading......

Oh, and would anyone really mind if we just outright banned tabloids? I'm not normally one for banning anything, but honestly? I cannot see a single redeeming feature for them.

The only use I still see for newspapers is for cleaning windows, leave no smears.

No, the elite have other means of spreading their poisonous propaganda these days.

"
73. At 12:10pm on 26 Oct 2010, suzie127 wrote:

The only use I still see for newspapers is for cleaning windows, leave no smears.
"

Maybe you should go on Dragons Den ;-)

So-called newspapers are unreliable, unashamedly biased, create scandal and shame when they fail to dig it out, lower the tone of just about everything they touch on and divert attention away from the real issues and choices we have before us. They are also inconvenient to handle, a waste of good trees and totally unnecessary now that good quality toilet paper is cheaply available everywhere.

We have a newspaper delivered every weekday. ( The Times) It's the highlight of my husbands day as he's disabled and finds getting about difficult. We do watch the News on the television, but it's fleeting, there and gone in minutes. It's good to be able to choose and read an article at your own pace and formulate opinion that way. I do think that the sports and business sections could be a little smaller in a lot of papers, and some of the news articles a little more in depth, to give us more than we get from a television newscast.

I rarely read a daily paper as they are yesterday's news and I keep up wuith the latest development form the internet.

The exception is the Evening Standard, which is free and contains todays news. Great for the commute back home.

Absolutely. Where they have always been useful, to start log fires and as a substitute for toilet paper.

I stopped buying newspapers a decade ago. I didn't want to see a half naked girl, and a section for women based on handbags and diets (proof that men edit these newspapers if any were needed). I decided my money wasn't going to sustain sexist attitudes. Once in a while I check my thinking and yes, newspapers are still stuck with a market aimed at 1970s blue-collar man. Good luck with that market base, I say!

Come to think of it I can't bring any woman known to me who reads newspapers. Perhaps we dDon't need to be told what to think and read an editor's opinion based on his foreign owner's point of view.

Yes,I purchased the paper today.At 20p its about all I can afford on a daily basis to waste.The rubbish churned out by the broad sheets at a £1 or more a copy is an extravegence to far for most.The "i" paper is OK and readable but cant see it stopping the great switch to on-line news over time-suject to where its free of course!Who would buy pages of the Sun or Times on line when you can get excellent news on the BBC web pages?The days of the newspaper as we know them are finished after all who wants to pay for advertising at outrageous rates to get into a rag or posh rag,knowing that most people never even look at ads on their way to gossip or sport pages.News is instant these days and what we look at is controlled,especially in print.On the web you can instantly see if what is printed is actually true by looking for other views from all around the world!Given we live in troubled times its the web I trust not politically controlled newspaper barons.

To all those who say they get there information from the web - are you serious?

The only truthful comment I know about the web I saw on a car bumber, it said:-

The internet,

Where men are men,

where women are men,





and where kids are undercover police officers!

The newspaper will hopefully die quite soon as it's wasteful and pointless. Cheaper prices and bingo have been keeping this outdated relic alive. I'm guessing no one under the age of forty buys them. The quality papers should be online. The tabloids should be online with a huge special tax as they are anti-democratic, silly and represent comics for the older reader who has not grown up. Inducements such as free bingo should be outlawed.

Of course there's a place for the newspapers. They're very useful for wrapping breakables before storing them in the attic (or before moving house), they're great at soaking up mud and water from mucky boots after a day's walking, they make good liners for wardrobe-drawers, ...

When it comes to important subjects like war, foreign polciy, Israel/Palestine, etc current newspapers merely regurgitate media releases from those with vested interests in the publci believing a certain line. Long gone are the days when they had fearless inconveninet or distasteful to the owner of the newspaper or to politicians that may be. So, I don't read them. I use a variety of online sources and hope to glean some truth from reading between the lines. I shouldn't have to rely on Wikileaks for the truth - the newspapers shouldl have found all that stuff out at the time and published it.

I agree that, unfortunately, 90% of some newspapers' content is pointless filler material of no interest to anyone with an IQ in double figures. A lot of this can be avoided and the rest can be ignored and there's still plenty of worthwhile news coverage, analysis and intelligent comment and debate out there in the printed word.
What makes your contributors think their online sources of information are any less slanted than the newspaper versions they so dislike?
It's hardly surprising that an online forum is going to come down on the side of the internet but just as I thought I might after all be in the wrong I found two contributors who judged the Metro free sheet to be the best newspaper. If they represent in any way the level of thought put into thie discussion I can go away happily and leave you to your fantasies.

Now why would I want to read any so called news paper in Britain??
They are only full of scandals,half naked women and jumped up opinionated journalists who think they are better than anyone else,no,I will stick to gathering news on line,where I can reach my own conclusions.

I would no longer buy a newspaper but I do read the Metro each morning on my commute

The only thing a Murdoch newspaper should be use for is either lighting a fire or in an emergency, toilet use.They are also good for wrapping up soiled nappies.Newspapers are so obviously pure propaganda, for, and on behalf of the tory party.Now you can see the association with bodily waste.

*YES, THERE IS A PLACE FOR NEWS PAPER AND IT WILL REMAIN FOREVER .

Most red top 'newspapers' nowadays are really a cross between a daily womens gossip magazine and a comic for grown boys.

And it works, they sell.

Sex, football/sports, personal lifestyle and holidays are the main content and a smidgen of 'newsy stuff' gets thrown in to justify the newspaper tag.

They've done well and created a decent sized market.

The cerebral middle classes abandoned buying decent newspapers in profitable quantities decades ago.

70. At 12:04pm on 26 Oct 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:
Think of the Trees!!!! Why won't people please think of the Trees!!!
-*-
Soothing, but not easy whilst reading, especially when doing the doing the crosswords.

No. I stopped buying newspapers once I realised they were telling the truth as they see it, and not the truth as it actually was. There! I didn't accuse anyone of being a lying scumbag, now did I?

Will give it a try but, like most working people, I don't get time to read a paper every day.

Is there still a place for newspapers?

For certain newspapers, yes - and it's the bottom of my cat's litter tray!

7. At 10:31am on 26 Oct 2010, corncobuk wrote:
"Although i tend to get my news online i still would like to read a newspaper at breakfast. Unfortunately newspapers still force their political bias down our throats, so until that stops i can`t see me buying a newspaper in the forseeable future"


All Newpapers present their editorial columns and content in general from a politically biased point of view, the broadsheets as well as the tabloids, the tabloids presenting things in a more condensed and sensational manner

If you are sufficiently able to perceive that for yourself then in what way are they forcing it down your throat?

Are online Sites or TV Channels any less biased in the way they present the News?

Whether online on TV or on paper there is usually a fair amount of factual content within or surrounding the sensational, biased stuff

Where do you obtain a truly objective presentation of news and current affairs?

After all, I venture to suggest that things only appear biased from our own biased point of view

"Is there still a place for newspapers"? is the HYS question.

Absolutely, yes. We must retain a choice of media/news delivery in a 'physical' form. In fact, new trees are planted everyday to maintain the paper used - also new trees absorb more Co2. As for gossip/celeb magazines - that a whole different 'story'.

Most 'aware' people recycle their newspapers - in fact compost bins do much better with some shredded newspaper. Excellent for laying up the fire, wrapping broken glass/cups or dishes before putting in bin to stop rips in feeble recycled bin bags. Newspaper has great insulating properties too behind a fixed outside wall radiator (NOT electric rads).

I digress. The main concerns always boil down to who owns the newspaper you buy? If you think Rupert Murdoch has too much power already over your government - don't buy, or perhaps even boycott his newspapers. Try one he doesn't own - just because you can and you are not a mindless sheep of habit that craves less choice. Every little helps?

I will start reading newspapers again when they start printing factual reports. Not their own opinion. Not their own version of the facts slanted to create a more sensational story. Just the facts from all affected parties and leave me to make my own conclusions. And get rid of all the celebrity garbage, if I wanted to read about those wastes of space I would buy Hello magazine.

The Independant, like the tabloids hardly qualfies as a newspaper. It prints issues not news. It has realised that access to news via the interweb has put paid to a lucrative earner. 'i' to me sounds like another version of the interminable wastes of paper that are the broadsheet magazines. It may work if it writes its articles in depth, in short Who, Where, What, Why, When, How. without 'experts' enlarging and puffing out articles for ego and money.

It will take a long time to wean folk off the physical feel of a newspaper. What builder's mate is going to forgo sitting on the bog with his copy of the Sun in hand? Perfect, also, if the loo paper has run out. (Much better than cement bags!)

Seriously the forest-destroying newspaper is on its way out. It might take another generation to get right down to the last surviving newspaper, but it will happen. I subscribe to the Guardian on line. (You guessed right.) The last newspaper I thumbed through was the Metro, because it was there. I haven't bought a newspaper for many months. Considering I'm 58, and the younger generation is apparently more internet savvy, the infection is clearly spreading. It would take a 1 in a 100 year solar flare to stop on line culture in its tracks.