How informed could one be going print-only in 2011?

I don't know you have time to read at least seven different magazines that pop into your mailbox.

 

Well, one could say that those who visit those websites have already made up their mind which way they'll vote regardless.

 

It would be almost impossible to go print-only for sports news consumption unless you were planning on not watching TV sports at all. Every sports channel has some version of the news/score ticker that runs nonstop during games. By default, you're going to get a lot of news -- or at least scores and headlines -- indirectly through game watching.

 

The analysis and insight online, though, often exceeds that in print. Read the NYT and you'll have a good idea of how politicians are arguing; read a few of the better blogs and you'll learn a lot more about the proposals they're arguing about.

 

Actually, Daily Kos has one feature containing information I check out daily. It's Today in Congress, and it's a straightforward description of the agenda for both houses and the byzantine procedures that will be used to deal with those agendas. I know the author is a serious lefty policy nerd, but the unintentional hilarity of what he's writing (of which he's aware) is off the charts for me. It's the 21st century, and our national legislature functions as if quill pens and powdered wigs are standard equipment for all members.

 

I have little doubt you could stay informed. Reading the USA Today every day would better inform you than an average American. The problem is cost. Magazine subscriptions aren't too expensive if you find promo deals online, but getting the WSJ or NY Times in print is going to hit the wallet pretty hard.

 

I think this is something I worry about. I don't understand tax policy from reading the New York Times, at least not unless it's filtered through Paul Krugman in 750 leading words.

That's why I think you'd have to definitely supplement your periodical reading with books and probably some academic magazines.

 

That's what the public library is for. Understandably if you live in a major metro area, that's a hassle. In a small town, it's a five minute drive and I save hundreds of dollars each year.

No way I could afford to buy The Economist. I'd need to sell plasma. I think it's up to about $140 a year.

 

That would be a funny site when you're talking with others who are doing the same, and you mention you'll be using the money to buy The Economist. I'm sure you'd fit right in.

 

Well, I have been on vacation since Monday, but not away. I ran some errands and listened to news radio in the car today but did not always pay attention to what was being said. I have looked at SportsJournalists.com and Romenesko a couple times a day. I have gone online a couple times to check baseball scores. Otherwise, I have been quite willing to rely on my home-delivered newspaper, the one that employs me. I do not always need or want to know everything immediately or in tremendous depth, especially sports. And the newspaper delivers more than enough if I am willing to wait. I must admit on my last vacation, we went away and I did not always have easy access to the internet and I did feel upsettingly disconnected. But I think that's more a disruption of habit rather than a true need to know. End of the week, relying almost only on the newspaper, I think I am better informed about a wide variety of stuff than most people, especially those who simply cherry-pick a few topics, which in my experience is what most online users do.

 

Great thread, DW.

I think if you had access to some of the best newspapers, like the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, etc., you would get good analysis of important national issues and be fairly well-informed.

If you had to rely on your local, podunk daily paper? Ugh. Many of them, in a desperate attempt to stay relevant, go hyper local with their dwindling news hole and reduce "world/nation" news to a half page of briefs.


(I say this as someone who works at said local, podunk daily paper)

 

I had this article in the back of my mind for a couple of threads here, and this morning, it clicked to the front of my mind and I dug it up. Interesting perspective on the whole old vs. new media thing (because it's early, note: If this was its own subject or a main part of another thread already, and hardly a revelation, well, sorry; this place is a huge moving part, and I don't see everything):

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/learning-to-love-the-shallow-divisive-unreliable-new-media/8415/