Anyone subscribe to any online newspapers?

[larus]

In the past I used to read a lot on the Telegraph business section before it went to the Premium service. I avoid the tabloids (Mail, Express, Sun, etc.), so wondered if anyone had any experience/views of any of the 'better' newspapers online offerings.
Or any suggestions for decent news/business coverage on-line.

The BBC is OK for headlines but not really detailed analysis, but I do think that they are biased - again, personal opinion and others will disagree.

 

[severnside gull]

Times Ed is all.

 

[kingcole]

Also the times. I use it on my tablet (ipad) and it's great. It normally lands around 3am and I read it every day. And in the case of the Sunday Times, often all day!

I travel quite a bit and it's great to have upto date news from home.

It's not cheap but deals to get you signed up should be about £15pm for an initial period. After this ends, call to cancel and they will offer you another cheaper rate.

 

[Cian]

Have two subs and two dead-tree deliveries still - one is a magazine with no digital version and the other is cheaper delivered still!

Guardian & Irish Times (different paper to the Times completely, Times is Times Ireland here) digitally; Sunday Business Post (centre-left leaning political/business paper - no sports section is the main difference) and Private Eye delivered.

Used to spend a good 100 quid a month on magazines and probably bought a paper a day and two or three on weekends - this is a hell of a lot cheaper

 

[soistes]

Financial Times - despite its city readership, it often has the most in-depth, balanced coverage of economic and political affairs, and it doesn't really toe any party line. FT commentators like Martin Wolf are among the best anywhere, and they have really good specialist correspondents (e.g. Sarah O'Connor their young employment/labour market correspondent).

 

[Boroseagull]

Telegraph for me - difficult to beat their business and sport coverage.

 

[spence]

Why pay for news when it's free from many sources? I wouldn't dream of paying for it.

 

[larus]

Telegraph for me - difficult to beat their business and sport coverage.

Must admit that's my thought too. When away on business, I get the Times in the hotel (customer pays hotel bill ), but I do look at the Telegraph a lot still and miss the detailed analysis on the business section. Maybe I'll bite the bullet and sign up.

With ref to [MENTION=30242]spence[/MENTION]. Yes there is a lot of free news, but sometimes having a good source with detailed analysis is good. I do also read some other good blogs, such as https://notayesmanseconomics.wordpress.com/ for economic analysis. If you've never come across this and finance/economics interests you, he's been spot on on many of the problems around the UK (BoE interest rate policy), ECB, Euro, banks (all over Europe). I'd highly recommend.

 

[AZ Gull]

Why pay for news when it's free from many sources? I wouldn't dream of paying for it.

I subscribe to the electronic version of the Argus because not all their content is put on their website.

 

[knocky1]

I've only one visit left to NY Times. Shame. Too tight to pay for an occasional visit though.

 

[Weststander]

No, I refuse to. Have sometimes signed up to The Times, then cancelled before the first DD is due.

During this election I've found articles (limited by number unless you pay) online, in the contrasting The Spectator and New Statesman, interesting and surprising fair, at times criticising their own sides. But the best thing is that they are very well written, usually lacking the personal spite and veiled manipulation of the likes of Paul Mason. The Economist too, but they are very hot on you paying.

 

[Cian]

Why pay for news when it's free from many sources? I wouldn't dream of paying for it.

What's free is either under threat (due to being non-profitable) or nonsense, generally.

No news setup of the type any paper has can support itself on online advertising as it stands. You would be left with licence fee subsidised broadcasters and cheap as possible opinion-driven "news" sources from each and every viewpoint and pretty much nothing else if online advertising was the only source of income

I'd be someone who'd trust the BBC as a news source but even then I don't want a situation where you basically have BBC, Brietbart and the Canary as the lineup of "online news".

There is going to be further dramatic contraction in the legacy media shortly - already some are cross-subsidising with income from other businesses. INM who used to own The Independent before it was sold and then made online-only are now using their delivery vans to deliver groceries to shops to make more money to fund the newsroom!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I subscribe to The Guardian iPad edition. It's pretty good and technically a lot more than some papers that are nothing more than a PDF of each page.

 

[spence]

What's free is either under threat (due to being non-profitable) or nonsense, generally.

No news setup of the type any paper has can support itself on online advertising as it stands. You would be left with licence fee subsidised broadcasters and cheap as possible opinion-driven "news" sources from each and every viewpoint and pretty much nothing else if online advertising was the only source of income

I'd be someone who'd trust the BBC as a news source but even then I don't want a situation where you basically have BBC, Brietbart and the Canary as the lineup of "online news".

There is going to be further dramatic contraction in the legacy media shortly - already some are cross-subsidising with income from other businesses. INM who used to own The Independent before it was sold and then made online-only are now using their delivery vans to deliver groceries to shops to make more money to fund the newsroom!

They make money from adverts and sponsors.

This is the internet. There will always be free news/information. I pay enough money out for other important things. I simply cannot justify why you would pay for news.

 

[Cian]

They make money from adverts and sponsors.

This is the internet. There will always be free news/information. I pay enough money out for other important things. I simply cannot justify why you would pay for news.

The don't make anywhere near enough money - that's the problem.

All the major news outlets online are funding that via some source than online ads. Paper sales, licence fees, debt - pick one.

I worked for the radio station chain now owned by Newscorp (Talksport etc - was the Northern Irish ITV licencee and basically imploded over a year and a half) and can tell you how little you make from online ads and sponsorship. A "site takeover" - ads that annoy the everlasting shit out of ever reader - makes a few grand for a week on a site with a big audience. Doesn't pay the wages.