Wednesday 24 March 2010

Not Reading the Papers

I seem to have given up reading newspapers again. This was less a conscious decision than a combination of circumstances somehow squeezing the newspaper-reading option out of my day-to-day life. I can't say that I feel any lack. In the days when I did read the papers diligently, I soon realised that almost nothing of what I'd read remained in my head the following day (or indeed hour) - it just briefly cluttered up my brain, then disappeared. Newspapers seem to me now such big, uninviting, time-devouring beasts - they ask too much, and why bother? Especially as most of what is in them is padding in various forms - the gist of most pieces can be gathered from headline and pull quote alone - and there is little writing in newspapers that is actually enjoyable to read. Much better and much pithier writing is to be found (surrounded, admittedly, by much dross) around the blogscape - and news, of course, is everywhere; the days are long gone when we needed newspapers for the first part of their name. Do we really need them for anything else? The number of people who do feel the compulsion to buy a paper regularly is clearly in decline, and the wood-pulp-based part of the newspaper industry is contracting (the only paper putting on substantial sales is a rag called The Daily Star, which consists largely of what are known in the trade as 'upskirt' photos - is this the future?). As far as I'm concerned, time spent reading the newspapers is time that could have been so much better spent reading something worthwhile, listening to music, writing something, taking a walk and looking around at the world, or staring vacantly into the middle distance.

7 comments:

  1. Newspapers are a great way of depressing oneself, a bargain of a method at less than a pound, completely legal and no prescription needed. But, hmmn, without them I would be without some favourite columnists, and above all we would be without the exposure of wrong-doing and corruption, not least by Don Politico and his pals, so it's not that easy. I browse them on the net, like most folks these days I'd guess. I'm a little surprised that the news industry still hasn't worked out a decent system for micropayments to bring in some money. No subscription, but a few pence per day if you flick the paper online, that kind of thing. I'm not really a fan of free - "The future's bright, the future's Google" is a scary idea. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've been feeling the same for a while. In particular I find some of the opinion on the web so much more expert than that in the papers. This is because it is more often than not written by genuine experts or dedicated enthusiasts. And most of them also happen to write better than the journalists in the field!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh I thought it was just me! I diligently buy a paper on Saturday. It's supposed to last the week - but that's not really the point of news is it? So I read old news, if I get round to it at all. I leave the Review until last - delaying gratification - then I don't get round to that either before Saturday comes round and round and round... But we need the paper as kindling for the fire - and I think I feel some sort of moral obligation to keep myself 'informed'. Ha ha. Fat chance of that!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like buying the paper for the 'randomness' of the news - I like reading about things I hadn't previously thought I would be interested in. But I have stopped buying newspapers because the quality of the writing has plummeted and even the Torygraph spends lots of time talking about celebrities and fads. The Sunday Times is so naff, vacuous and consumerist it makes my skin crawl. These days I just have a quick look at the front pages online.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Since my already dwindling interest in TV metamorphosed into a hostile avoidance of it, I have used online to access anything that I feel may engage me in the world, and have discovered that well written responses to the news, rather than the news per se, are a better investment of my time. Pre-web The Sunday Times was my weekly catch-up, but as it has grown to hernia-producing proportions, my enthusiasm has waned in inverse proportion, and I now leave my friendly Indian purveyor hiding behind his giant tower of forestry, and spend the two quid on a packet of Multi Cheerios.

    ReplyDelete
  6. For much of a year we gave up the Monday to Friday papers and took only the Saturday and Sunday editions. Partly this was because the Telegraph had become so vacuous/infantilised/feminised. Then they offered us all seven Telegraphs on a deal that cost little more than the Saturday and Sunday alone. So the extra
    Matt cartoons and sodukus came virtually free. We signed up for it, then - oh joy! - they started publishing the MPs' expenses scandal stories, so it worked out quite well.
    We long ago gave up the telly News broadcasts and have not returned. Not only vacuous/infantilised/feminised, but hopelessly biased too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Newspapers were once a big part of my reading. Now, with time being limited and newspapers being reduced to irrelevance (i.e., I was once a fan of NY Times, but now I wonder why), I limit myself to two newspapers: The Wall Street Journal (for good journalism) and my local city newspaper (for the local tidbits available nowhere else and the unintended comic relief that comes in a really dismal newspaper).

    ReplyDelete