[HN Gopher] Ask HN: What news subscription is worth it?
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: What news subscription is worth it?
My NYTimes subscription is ending next month and I am looking for
another news subscription. What news publication is it worthwhile
to subscribe to? I've read horror stories about dark patterns in
cancellation so that should also factor in. I'm not sure if anyone
noticed but NYTimes' quality has gone downhill for the past 2-3
years and why is there no dark mode on the app? WSJ looks good but
there are issues with cancellation. Edit: I am from Southeast Asia
and got lots of family and relatives in the USA, so the obvious
interest in Western and EU culture and politics.
Author : lawgimenez
Score : 73 points
Date : 2022-06-17 16:13 UTC (6 hours ago)
| redorb wrote:
| archive.ph
| sshine wrote:
| Hacker News, $0/mo.
|
| For following the war in Ukraine, I used "TLDR Daily":
|
| https://www.youtube.com/c/TLDRDaily
|
| https://open.spotify.com/show/3yoF2Uwd1JQsErhBHnGQKD?si=pk3F...
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| More free Ukraine coverage:
|
| https://www.understandingwar.org/publications
| throw457 wrote:
| Get a library card and most media including newspapers and
| magazines are free... Libby is also a really great and performant
| app and on top you get books, audiobooks, some video and audio
| streaming it's an incredible value.
| aenis wrote:
| I like bloomberg. Good signal to noise ratio. They generally only
| cover topics which move money markets, and thus have a real
| impact on me. Its not cheap but aside from HN thats my only
| source of news for a better part of a decade.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > Good signal to noise ratio
|
| Honest question: did SuperMicro microchips story [pun intended]
| moved the marked measurable for you?
| pyrophane wrote:
| Financial Times
|
| Economist
|
| NY Times (I disagree that it has gone downhill)
|
| The New Yorker
| achow wrote:
| Perhaps unrelated..
|
| Is theinformation.com really worth it for $33/month?
|
| They seem to publish tech stories which do not appear anywhere
| else.
| mlinksva wrote:
| Not a subscription, but in the competition for my time, I like
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events -- it fills a
| similar role for me as the Economist did in another era (I used
| to read the paper version religiously) -- globalish coverage of
| important events, some pleasurable idiosyncracies, bias toward
| Western culture and politics due to language and authors.
|
| LWN.net is the only news subscription I can recommend without
| reservation, but of course it's not general news. :)
| Hel5inki wrote:
| calderwoodra wrote:
| I subscribe to The New Paper, it's good enough to stay up to date
| while still being concise and non-partisan 99/100 times.
| zendaven wrote:
| I am very happy with https://newsasfacts.com/. It helps me to
| catch up on global events in usually under a minute.
| lagrange77 wrote:
| Interesting! They have a nice logo btw.
| chewmieser wrote:
| Really love the Apple News+ subscription. Includes a ton of
| content including WSJ.
|
| I also subscribe separately to NYT & Washington Post. All great
| options.
| t0bia_s wrote:
| I personaly quit read any news. Those really important gets to me
| from differnet sources (friends or here on HN). I rather invest
| my time to read articles on various topics, philosophy, art...
| RSS helps to get feed of very interesting ideas.
| Apreche wrote:
| The ones that are the most worth-it tend to be trade
| publications. Of course, they are only worth it to people who are
| in that particular industry.
| nathancahill wrote:
| A lot of the suggestions here are for USA national or local
| regional news. For international news, Foreign Policy
| (foreignpolicy.com) is excellent. It avoids the "Breaking News"
| noise trap and instead explains the context and significance of
| world events. Largely apolitical with a slight slant of liberal
| internationalism.
| sgent wrote:
| I really like Business Week but IDK how hard it is to cancel
| (have it through Apple News).
| etchalon wrote:
| I'd recommend the Economist. It's a lot less US centric. It is
| more expensive.
| bergenty wrote:
| The NY Times. I get annoyed with their obviously feminist agenda
| in some articles but I just skip those. Their methodology is
| stellar though and the articles are well researched and in-depth.
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| For daily News: WSJ and NYT
|
| For global news: The Economist (simply the best!)
|
| For Science news: National Geographic (more on photography and
| travel side), Scientific American (A little more hard science but
| especially good to keep up with space related scientific
| progress)
| Goosee wrote:
| If you own apple devices try Apple News+
|
| Here are the included publications: https://www.apple.com/apple-
| news/publications/
| techgnosis wrote:
| I live in Seattle and pay for The Seattle Times. Anyone who can
| afford their local paper should probably subscribe. I learn a lot
| about how Seattle works from the paper. You can get federal news
| anywhere, that is boring. Make sure you are informed about local
| and state issues.
| heretogetout wrote:
| I want to subscribe to a local paper but I can't get over the
| fact that they charge 3x as much as I pay for a Washington Post
| subscription. There just isn't that much news going on here.
| pionar wrote:
| Yes, I live outside of Detroit, have been here for 7 years, and
| have learned just so much more about the city since I started
| subscribing to the Detroit Free Press late last year.
| WalterBright wrote:
| The ST reprints a lot of NYT articles for their non-local news.
| Too bad they never reprint WSJ articles.
| strongpigeon wrote:
| I cancelled my Seattle Times subscription since the ads on
| their site are garbage. From the full page red and yellow
| "Video Only!" ads to some that would redirect to some scam site
| on mobile without clicking. After complaining repeatedly by
| email I decided to vote with my wallet and called to
| unsubscribe. They did their whole retention spiel and said I
| should just use an ad blocker on their site...
|
| Some of the local coverage was good, but I prefer even more
| focused coverage like CHS Blog/The Urbanist/Seattle Transit
| Blog and Geekwire.
| sbf501 wrote:
| Another vote for The Economist.
|
| It is a weekly publication with good writers. Meaning: it is
| rarely, if ever, sensational, and covers prominent issues around
| the globe so I stay informed after about 60 minutes of reading. I
| still haven't figured out which way the editorial staff swings
| because they do a good job of keeping explicit bias out, but they
| seem to be left of center.
|
| I also subscribe to The Atlantic. They are solid long-form
| reporting, but occasionally they get a really far-out article.
|
| I used to get The Baffler, great out-of-the-box ideas, but the
| content was too depressing.
| kesava wrote:
| +1 for Economist.
|
| Don't let the titles of New York Review of Books and London
| Review of Books fool you. They do much longer view of
| contemporary news but thru book review.
|
| Most news is probably not worth following every day. The
| rearview mirror of a weekly magazine gives better context than
| trying to follow most news the same day when details are still
| ongoing.
| the_biot wrote:
| The Economist is very definitely on the right economically, and
| on the left socially. In other words it's classic liberal, and
| they regularly make that clear. They've been going with more
| opinion pieces in the last few years, which is not an
| improvement IMHO.
|
| Only real downside to The Economist though is their app. It's a
| complete embarrassment, the worst I've seen. It's _comically_
| bad, don 't-just-fire-them-shoot-them bad.
| fumplethumb wrote:
| I've been reading the Economist digitally using their app for
| years. They had a few issues over the years - I think they
| prevented copy/paste for a minute. I was pissed about that.
|
| But now I love the app. The typography is decent, they
| support light/dark themes, you can play human-read audio of
| every piece individually, etc.
|
| I'm curious, what are your problems with the app?
| n8cpdx wrote:
| The app could be better, but the access to actual human
| narration of all articles outweighs the downsides IMO. Maybe
| the reading experience is bad?
|
| For listening, I download the weekly copy and that makes it a
| bit more reliable.
|
| If anyone from the economist is listening, please give me the
| option of putting the next 15s, previous 15s buttons on the
| Lock Screen (it matches what I do for podcasts).
| the_biot wrote:
| Yes, the reading experience is what's so bad. Very often
| when you're reading it'll suddenly crash, or blank the
| page, or switch to a random page in the next issue, etc etc
| etc.
|
| A few months ago they broke _swiping_ , if you can believe
| that. It's now suddenly hard to swipe to the next article,
| because it wants to scroll up or down instead. How the hell
| do you break swiping in an Android app in 2022!
|
| And to top it all off, the insult on top of the
| ridiculously bad experience: the regular pop-up (when
| you're reading), to ask how you like the app? Type your
| feedback here! Which is 100% ignored of course, for YEARS.
| I've taken to just sending in "fuck you".
|
| What, me bitter?
| antognini wrote:
| For what it's worth I was having exactly the same
| experience as you on my Pixel 1. But a few weeks ago I
| upgraded to the latest pixel and the app works great now.
|
| I suspect that the app is just so heavy and bloated that
| it performs really poorly on older phones.
|
| Not that there's any excuse for that. All it should be
| doing is displaying some text so you'd think it would be
| pretty lightweight.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| It sounds like the Android app is worse than the iOS app.
| Unfortunately, that means my recent discovery won't help
| you, but will hopefully help others:
|
| With the Apple News app, you can log in to your Economist
| account and get access to the economist content through
| the News app.
| skrebbel wrote:
| I agree that the app is awful (in particular, it's both slow
| and buggy), but the _content in the app_ is amazing. Eg it
| has posh Brits who sound like they got plucked straight from
| the country club reading every single article out loud, it 's
| super handy and delightfully done.
| Tepix wrote:
| Are you willing to look beyond US issues? Check out Le Monde
| Diplomatique https://mondediplo.com/
| someluccc wrote:
| Financial Times is #1 by far. WSJ is a good second option.
| Perhaps subscribe with a virtual card you can cancel?
| insickness wrote:
| Ground (https://ground.news/) attempts to deliver news while
| allowing readers to compare how media outlets with different
| political ideologies are covering stories.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Looking down the list of a lot of the news sources they cover,
| I don't see much coverage of mainstream US press - or
| mainstream world press for that matter. and I do see a massive
| number of sites I don't recognize the name of. Quite strange.
|
| Catholic News Agency somehow isn't tagged "right", ditto for
| "The Catholic Telegraph"
| lelawobu wrote:
| I have been happy with Inkl for several years. Curated access to
| many mainstream sources, including Guardian, Atlantic, Forbes,
| Financial Times, et al.
| [deleted]
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| I personally only reallt pay for WSJ and I guess Apple News but
| indirectly I am not a fan of Apple News since a number of
| articles feel politically biased. I just want raw facts not
| opinion pieces.
| tootie wrote:
| WSJ feels "necessary" but a lot of their coverage and
| especially opinions are nuts. I expect a pro-business, pro-
| capitalist slant, but sometimes they go a little too far down
| the Murdoch ladder. Their coverage of the Durham investigation
| looks like it was written by Trump campaign staffers.
| sdsaga12 wrote:
| This all depends on how you're approaching the question. Why do
| you want to read the news?
|
| What do you hope to get out of it? You're absolutely right that
| the NYT has changed in recent years, but that change has been
| part of systemic shifts that have affected all of journalism as
| it existed before the internet.
|
| For most outlets, "the news" is now substantially more
| infotainment and in-group sermonizing than it used to be.
| Buzzfeed-y clickbait and Facebook-y rageporn juice engagement
| numbers like little else. Competition for your attention online
| is fierce and, with access to alternatives at the click of a
| button, audiences have very little appetite to continue reading
| an outlet that publishes things they don't agree with.
|
| Are you looking to stay abreast of conversational topics in
| certain social circles? Are you looking for high-quality
| information that will help you form more accurate predictions
| about the world? If so, what types of predictions are most
| important to you? Economic? Social? Political?
|
| Do you like your facts presented in an editorialized fashion or
| do you want events to be reported without being nudged to feel
| one way or another about them? Do you just want a news source
| that provides fun stuff to read? Do you read the news because
| you're not very into sports and books are too long? (I've been
| there in life.) How important are polish and sleek UIs to you? Do
| you want to read content that goes down easy or do you want to
| survey a broad set of views on subjects to know what other people
| are thinking even if some of that makes you angry or confused?
|
| This is maybe not quite what you're looking for, but I'd use this
| decision as an opportunity to step back and reflect on the bigger
| question of why you want a subscription to a news publication in
| the first place.
|
| Once you have the answer to some of those questions, that should
| help narrow down your search.
|
| If you're interested in some articles that further reflect on
| changes in the news, I'd recommend these two:
| https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/its-all-just-displaceme...
| and https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-is-americas-new-
| relig...
| danieldevries wrote:
| Financial Times
| Bhilai wrote:
| WSJ, if you can ignore their editorial page, which is so
| blatantly biased and promotes so much false information that it
| is a surprise its a part of the same news organization.
| bin_bash wrote:
| agreed. It's expensive, but I bit the bullet and subscribed 2
| years ago and I find the non-editorial articles to be
| incredibly high quality.
|
| The iPad app could be better.
| gralx wrote:
| Seconded. I subscribed to Financial Times for a year, whose
| prose, editorial balance, and coverage insight are noticeably
| inferior to The Wall Street Journal's. I also subscribed to The
| Economist and feel it is also inferior, but it is a weekly, so
| that's kind of comparing kettles and fish.
|
| I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's opinion that the best journalism
| is found in the financial press because businesses need a more
| accurate and timely view of what's going on.
|
| And yes, the op-eds are a blemish on the paper's outstanding
| journalistic reputation. It got jammed full of cronies after
| News Corp purchased the paper. Its workaday editorial staff
| remain fiercely independent, however.
| tootie wrote:
| Main ones are NYT and Economist. I don't see how the NYT has gone
| downhill as much as they have broadened a bit into some less
| serious stuff. Their mainstream news coverage is still second to
| none.
|
| Otherwise, I lean towards non-profit news like NPR and local
| affiliates, ProPublica, The Markup, Grist. They all cost nothing,
| but monthly gifts are accepted.
| di4na wrote:
| The Financial Times is the best Western generalist publication by
| far.
|
| It is... hard to do better.
| SaintGhurka wrote:
| I subscribe to FT and get the physical paper.
|
| What makes it so useful to me is that its political bias is
| largely divorced from American politics. They may have a bias
| on topics in Britain, but my American sensibilities aren't
| tuned to pick up on them.
|
| Also, financial news sources in general don't spend a lot of
| time on the highly charged red vs blue stories unless they
| somehow affect markets or the economy.
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| For anyone claiming NYT quality has gone downhill should try and
| read this article:
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/08/arts/design/d...
|
| This article has single handedly ignited my interest in arts and
| paintings. This is just an example but in general what I find
| great about NYT is the way they do storytelling with mixture of
| interactive visualization and text-based news and facts.
| jumelles wrote:
| NYT's visual journalism team is top-notch.
| pranshum wrote:
| This was great!
|
| IMO the NYT really shines with their arts/culture sections!
| Makes the subscription worth it for me personally.
|
| I do feel like their politics/opinion sections have gone
| downhill.
|
| But every now and then they do a long-form article which
| convinces me to re-subscribe for a year. This one was
| incredible: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/world/asia/the-
| jungle-pri...
| compscistd wrote:
| I read this article and a week later came across one of his
| works (with the signature lemon peel!) at the Met. Would not
| have been able to recognize him without it. I love how the NYT
| experiments with different mediums, like their weekly friday
| news quiz, their stellar cooking app, the crosswords, and now
| these little art explorations
| hangonhn wrote:
| Their tech is quite decent and open source too:
|
| https://github.com/nytimes
|
| I think the BBC does something similar as well:
|
| https://github.com/bbc/
| WalterBright wrote:
| I let my NYT subscription lapse because their articles were
| clearly pushing an agenda rather than reporting the news.
|
| I now subscribe to the WSJ. That way I can get the business and
| financial news I'm interested in by people who are educated in
| business and finance, rather than activism.
| zavertnik wrote:
| > I now subscribe to the WSJ. That way I can get the business
| and financial news I'm interested in by people who are educated
| in business and finance, rather than activism.
|
| I don't think that's a fair characterization of NYT. I'm
| curious if you're putting NYT's reporting and NYT's op-eds into
| the same bucket.
|
| > I let my NYT subscription lapse because their articles were
| clearly pushing an agenda rather than reporting the news.
|
| There aren't many large publications that publish w/o an angle,
| whether that effort is in the name of truthiness or personal
| gain is difficult to discern.
|
| In my opinion, the only solution to the 'getting unbiased news
| consistently' problem is solved with news aggregations. Looking
| at the diff between the major publications on any specific
| story may not reveal which angle/agenda is the most true, but
| it will reveal the variables that are being used to steer the
| ship.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I can distinguish the news articles from the op-ed ones. The
| _news_ articles were horribly slanted. Just their choice of
| words for the headline made it glaringly obvious that their
| _news_ articles were opinion pieces. They didn 't even try.
|
| I know the WSJ is biased, too. But their headlines tend to be
| neutral.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| Wall Street Journal
|
| If I had more time I'd do Financial Times as well.
| tacker2000 wrote:
| I read the Financial Times and The Economist. I think they are
| pretty well researched without leaning in a specific direction
| too much. The comments on FT are also mostly very civil, with
| good discussion.
|
| The Guardian is "intelligent" but is way too blatantly leftist,
| to get any sort of balanced information.
| rupi wrote:
| Second both FT and The Economist. You can get by just with the
| Economist if you are happy with it being a weekly.
|
| Both FT and Economist are very good at not including any fluff,
| in the language they use and in the content itself.
| jmfldn wrote:
| Everything is biased. I quite like The Economist but it's
| liberal, "markets first", stance is just as much an ideology as
| anything The Guardian espouses. Its trick is to make itself
| seem above the fray, offering a god's eye dispassionate
| opinion. It is clever marketing and presentation.
|
| I rate it for world affairs and it is a good news source. I
| just think it gets undue levels of praise.
| cpursley wrote:
| This, the financial focused papers have to at least be somewhat
| honest in their reporting as investors and other business folks
| depend on their reporting. Vs advocacy of whichever
| social/political/etc issue is currently in vogue.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| How do you explain the popularity among that crowd of the
| Wall Street Journal?
| xref wrote:
| The WSJ news section is generally described as center-
| right, and the editorial pages as hard-right
| nindalf wrote:
| Seconding the Economist. When I read it, I find I can stay in
| the loop without having to follow the news daily. A weekly high
| level summary is good enough for me.
| robwwilliams wrote:
| Killed the NYT and added Foreign Affairs. Focus is on non-
| ephemeral news. Longer pieces than the Economist but at about the
| same depth.
| mellosouls wrote:
| There are some good writers on dedicated subscription platforms,
| unfortunately forking out for several of them quickly costs
| substantially more than a single one to a "legacy" provider.
|
| Example: For an alternative view into US politics to some of the
| hopelessly biased mainstream platforms you could try Tangle, but
| that's just one unfortunately.
|
| https://www.readtangle.com/
|
| It would be nice if you could collate several of those sort
| together but I guess that's what the old style providers are
| still good at.
| Brendinooo wrote:
| Came to endorse Tangle. I'm a huge fan of what is being built
| there.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I do NYT Sunday delivery as well as The New Yorker, Economist,
| and The Atlantic print editions.
|
| I think that I enjoy The Atlantic and The New Yorker the most but
| Economist and NYT are more information dense.
|
| I mostly read my news in print, offline, and don't bother with
| the apps except I do like the live coverage on NYT app.
| Havoc wrote:
| I like FT and economist for the podcasts. Between them they push
| out just enough podcast for me to listen to everything and have
| it not be overwhelming in volume.
| fullshark wrote:
| None, there's no reason to follow the news. You're better off
| reading history books if you want to understand geopolitics /
| finance / whatever.
| silisili wrote:
| I'm pretty close to this myself. I still want to stay up on
| current events, without opinion pieces, entertainment, and
| other junk I don't care about.
|
| Closest I found was turning on Bloomberg for an hour or two in
| the morning randomly, but wish there was a print/site like
| that.
| Bhurn00985 wrote:
| Le Monde Diplomatique is in my opinion the best for in-depth
| quality journalism.
| whatwhatintheb wrote:
| Melatonic wrote:
| I really like subscribing to the actual Sunday delivery of a
| physical paper. Choose your poison. Go read it at a local coffee
| shop or farmers market or something and then watch as people
| everywhere look at you like your some kind of crazy person.
|
| Old people love it though - plus you can give it to someone else
| once your done!
|
| Also when was the last time you read The Funnies?
| n8cpdx wrote:
| +1 Economist
|
| - When they cover something I'm knowledgeable about, they get the
| facts right, so I trust them in other areas
|
| - App lets me listen to the weekly edition read by humans
|
| - Only comes out weekly (so no daily bullshit treadmill, and they
| have time to get things right)
|
| - Genuinely useful and interesting info. Since I switched from
| NYT to the Economist it's like I have supernatural powers to see
| into the future; nothing surprises me anymore. Recent issues
| where I knew what was coming months to weeks before others:
| COVID, post-COVID inflation, Ukraine
|
| I listened to the podcasts for months before paying to subscribe,
| and the podcasts (The Intelligence and Economist Asks are
| favorites) cover some of the content of the weekly edition. If
| you like the podcasts, you'll love the genuine article.
| skrebbel wrote:
| Same, I subscribed a few months ago and i think it's pretty
| amazing. Esp the weekly cadence: turns out that being up to a
| week behind on major news items is quite the blessing. More
| often than not, the dust will have settled and the Economist
| can write a balanced analysis.
| ghaff wrote:
| For a general news pub, either The Economist or the New York
| Times. They have pros and cons depending upon what you're
| interested in. Both of them are a bit rich for my blood given
| that they're mostly competing for a fixed amount of bandwidth
| on my part. Personally, at the moment, I get the NYT (I've had
| The Economist in the past) but it's a fairly close call.
| cranekam wrote:
| Another +1. Although I don't necessarily believe neoliberalism
| is the best thing ever at least the Economist doesn't hide its
| editorial stance and generally supports regulation where it's
| needed. And there is plenty of really good content (book
| reviews, science/tech, coverage of Russia-Ukraine war) that
| doesn't have a political skew one might dislike.
| pluram4815 wrote:
| https://www.levernews.com/
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Anyone aware of any news or magazines subscriptions that
| distribute their issues with EPUB as an option? I like to do my
| reading on a Kobo, and EPUB is _supposed_ to be the standard for
| such things, even though it seems like 95% of magazines use a
| Kindle format or a PDF for their digital stuff.
|
| The only publication I'm aware of was Linux Journal back in the
| day, but it's gone now.
| mrsaint wrote:
| Tried various news sources, but got stuck w/ the following
| subscriptions: Washington Post, Financial Times & The Economist.
| lawgimenez wrote:
| If I may ask why Washington Post? I'm starting to like their
| news coverage though seems lacking on the opinion and
| newsletters department.
| umeshunni wrote:
| That's a good thing, right?
| o_nate wrote:
| I still subscribe to NY Times online, but in the past couple of
| years I added a paper subscription to the FT, even though I'm in
| the US, and it tends to be a bit UK-centric. The paper
| subscription is their cheapest option, otherwise I would've gone
| with online. I actually read more news from the FT than the Times
| now, even though it tends to be about a day late, due to
| printing/editorial cycle etc, but I find it covers more of what
| I'm interested in. YMMV
| awillen wrote:
| I recommend Axios - the have a number of free, topic-specific
| daily newsletters. They're quick reads and well put together, and
| they usually link out to more detailed reporting on stuff that
| merits further reading.
| jlbbellefeuille wrote:
| I like The Information.
|
| https://www.theinformation.com
|
| I have been intrigued by Axios.
| beardyw wrote:
| Guardian. Amazing value.
| xref wrote:
| Ars Technica is only $25/yr and has a lot of deep knowledge on
| specific topics
| starwind wrote:
| I have subscriptions to the Economist (never had a problem
| pausing or canceling my subscription), the Athletic for sports
| (they always give me a huge discount when I try to cancel), and
| since the war in Ukraine started I have subscriptions the New
| York Times and the Wall Street Journal for $4/month each (those
| will be a pain in the ass to cancel).
|
| If you're worried about canceling and getting billed, put it on a
| credit card, and if you still get billed dispute the charge as
| "unauthorized" and block the merchant
| slg wrote:
| > the Athletic for sports
|
| I would be wary of supporting The Athletic at this exact
| moment. Just last week they issued new corporate directives to
| their journalists barring them from covering anything
| political. This might sound good in theory, people follow
| sports as an escape from their life including topics like
| politics. However, there is no way to talk about sports
| intelligently without the ability to discuss politics.
|
| What is currently happening in golf is a great example. A new
| league has just started up that is financed by the Saudi
| government as a means of sportswashing[1] their international
| reputation. Discussing a league like this without touching on
| politics would be both inherently lacking and a gift to the
| Saudi government.
|
| I would recommend a subscription to Defector if you are looking
| to a sports site to support. Here is their article[2] on the
| new rules at The Athletic.
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportswashing
|
| [2] - https://defector.com/the-nyt-owned-athletic-lays-down-
| new-no...
| Amorymeltzer wrote:
| Absolutely recommend Defector. Hands-down the best place on
| the internet, just a joy of skilled folks who love and care
| about what they do, no funny business.
| selljamhere wrote:
| +1 for The Economist. I enjoy their international coverage.
| mikebowman wrote:
| FYI every time I try to cancel my NYT subscription, they give
| me a deep discount. Also, if you have an All-Access NYT
| subscription, it now includes The Athletic. I cancelled my
| Athletic subscription a while back, but since it's included in
| NYT now, I'm more inclined to keep my NYT subscription and kill
| both birds with one stone.
| lawgimenez wrote:
| Yes this was my "trick" before. Right before my NYTimes
| subscription ends I always take on their $0.25 per month
| offer but I am not sure if they're gonna introduce it again
| this time. Thank you for the advice, I have an Athletic
| subscription and no idea it is already included in NYTimes.
| This is a game changer for sure.
| lawgimenez wrote:
| I'm not familiar with WSJ, how good is there coverage on world
| news?
| starwind wrote:
| Pretty good I gotta say. More emphasis on business/economic
| issues than the Times
| sgent wrote:
| Excellent for English Language financial news, and probably
| just OK compared to the NYT for political news.
| masterof0 wrote:
| Maybe not what OP is looking for, but for folks who can't afford
| news subscriptions I would recommend
| (https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome).
| DeathArrow wrote:
| I came across a guy who reads all the most important news
| outlets, selects all the important articles, makes digests and
| sends a news letter daily. It is subscription based.
|
| I just have to find it in my tens of thousands of bookmarks. :(
| azalemeth wrote:
| If you want something very British, Private Eye is an absolute
| blast. It's only available in dead-tree form and has a lot of
| real, high quality investigative journalism sprinkled in amongst
| the cartoons and satire. You can get a fairly good idea if you'll
| like it from their website [1].
|
| The podcast, Page 94, is also excellent [2] and is sparsely
| updated, but they do good things when it is. For an example of
| the "WTFBBQ" stories they cover, have a look at "The Snooty Fox"
| episode [3], which covers the rather horrid tale of a pub
| landlord who pissed off a council member by accidentally
| overcharging her, and ended up punitively investigated by the
| food standards people, bankrupted and quite literally imprisoned
| for several years. He finally secured justice after more than 20
| years when the council authority ceased to exist (and its
| successor apologised hugely and unreservedly - his convictions
| were quashed and later counter-sued for PS14m [4]).
|
| One other thing - cancelling the subscription is trivial.
|
| [1] https://www.private-eye.co.uk/ [2] https://www.private-
| eye.co.uk/podcast [3] https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast/68
| [4] https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1547675/pub-landlord-
| the-s...
| remus wrote:
| Another vote for the eye. It's amazing the number of stories
| that first appear there before being picked up by larger
| outlets years later. The post office scandal is a prime example
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
| sofixa wrote:
| Another vote for FT ( Financial Times). Pricey, but reporting is
| good and covers a vast arrays of topics and geos ( i can read
| about FC Barcelona's financial troubles, the fall of the latest
| Bulgarian cabinet and why that's going to end bad, an
| investigative report about fraud in Wirecard, etc. and it will be
| in decent depth), is factually correct and gets updated when it
| isn't.
| prash_ant wrote:
| Subscription to your regional or local newspaper will help you
| connect more with your community. We have so many wonderful
| regional newspapers. You can choose from your region.
| - Los Angeles Times - Chicago Tribune - The Boston
| Globe - San Francisco Chronicle - Miami Herald
| - Dallas Observer - Houston Chronicle - Denver Post
| - Star Tribune
| larrydag wrote:
| The primary Dallas local is the Dallas Morning News
| vincentmarle wrote:
| I paid for LA Times but it logged me out so frequently that it
| became very frustrating to use. NY Times on the other hand
| never logs me out.
| techgnosis wrote:
| The Seattle Times
| steanne wrote:
| not every local newspaper has local ownership. for instance:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Gannet...
| Melatonic wrote:
| Yea I really like going local. Even if something like the LA
| Times is a huge newspaper they still have a lot of cool little
| local stories that you would probably never hear about
| otherwise. Then again I am getting the physical delivery so it
| may be the format that is encouraging such things as well vs
| just reading their website.
| Komodai wrote:
| None.
| jeramey wrote:
| If you're in the Apple ecosystem, subscribing and unsubscribing
| to several of these news sources, so long as you read them in
| Apple's News app, becomes a lot easier, though it can be more
| expensive than going direct to the publisher. But hey, you get
| dark mode! And no major hassle when you want to stop a
| subscription!
|
| As far as quality of news, I'd echo the sentiment others have
| given that Wall Street Journal's factual reporting is stellar,
| but their opinion and editorial pieces leave a lot to be desired.
| I'd say the same about The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times.
|
| The Atlantic is decent for thoughtful editorials as can be The
| New Yorker, but honestly, you're just going to run into some
| sensationalism and knee-jerk, politically-motivated slant no
| matter what editorial/opinion sources you choose, so caveat
| emptor.
| heretogetout wrote:
| It's too bad the Apple news app is so user hostile. If you
| block a news source they don't remove it from any grids, they
| just hide images and text and replace it with something saying
| you've blocked the source. I block a lot of sources so it gets
| ugly fast.
| yakak wrote:
| I found PressReader's offer pretty interesting and would probably
| be using its premium plan if I were seriously going to read 1-2
| papers on an average day to be able to regularly try out
| different sources. Buying individual papers on it seemed a bit
| expensive but is better than going a-la-carte on individual sites
| and needing to avoid the resulting spam, etc.
| binbag wrote:
| The Financial Times is really good. It's not just about finance,
| don't worry. It's the most balanced and informative news source
| I've ever read. It's a little expensive but it's worth it. Been a
| subscriber for about 3 years now.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > I'm not sure if anyone noticed but NYTimes' quality has gone
| downhill for the past 2-3 years
|
| This has been said every year for my entire life. I would keep
| the NY Times, but also:
|
| * The Financial Times is on the NY Times level IMHO, but far more
| expensive
|
| * The Wall Street Journal is published by the same people behind
| Fox News. It's Fox News for the elite - framed in ways appealing
| to them, and trading on an old established brand. Same results,
| IME.
|
| * The Economist can be fantastic in terms of knowledge gained /
| minute. It's ideologically free-market - applying that tool to
| every situation. And it's not actually journalism, it's analysis:
| They generally don't dig up stories, interview people, etc. They
| summarize and analyze.
|
| * The Washington Post is nearly on the NYT level, IMHO.
|
| * Maybe The Guardian?
|
| That's it. Nothing else worth paying for (in English).
| coward123 wrote:
| The editorial / opinion pages of both NYT and WaPo ruined them
| for me. Thinking people want to read provocative, thoughtful
| perspectives that may challenge them, but the people and the
| positions in those pages are by and large, utter trash. Notice
| I didn't say anything about politics of left or right - I think
| there's trash there of both sides. We're talking people who are
| not good writers, who add nothing to public discourse, and who
| I would say spread a lot of at best half-truths and ill-
| informed ideas. So, I can't see paying for either one even
| though at least some of the journalism outside those sections
| is at least _ok_. Frankly, I think they both ride their past
| reputations and the fact they have survived by being in major
| urban centers while their past competitors (IE: small town
| newspapers, etc) have died.
| xref wrote:
| The WSJ has equally horrid opinion pages, as does my local
| paper. Editorial sections are basically trash in general,
| avoid them like the plague and your experience will be much
| better.
|
| Editorial sections are "clickbait" even before that was a
| thing. They've always existed to fire people up and sell
| papers.
| pneumatic1 wrote:
| The Economist and only read the print edition.
| verdverm wrote:
| NASA Spaceflight on YT, all things space news
|
| https://www.youtube.com/c/NASASpaceflightVideos
| bluenose69 wrote:
| TheGuardian.com is worth it, in my opinion. It's not expensive,
| and it gives world news, not just national news. The proofreading
| on the website is not impressive, though, compared with the
| weekly paper version (to which I also subscribe).
|
| I've also had WP and NYT subscriptions, and I think these are
| fine choices. One thing, though: I found it quite difficult to
| cancel my NYT subscription. Subscriptions are like hash functions
| -- easy in one direction and hard in the other.
| msapaydin wrote:
| I also like "the guardian", it is also less US centered, and
| has some great coverage of movies and technology ethics). The
| only catch is that the android subscription is not valid on the
| computer or any other device than android.
| lawgimenez wrote:
| I can easily cancel on the nytimes.com by going to settings.
| I'm in Asia though so maybe it is different on your region.
| omega3 wrote:
| Unfortunately the quality has also gone downhill and they've
| switched from news reporting to pushing an agenda.
| Veen wrote:
| It's always had a left-wing angle, but it has become more
| strident in recent years as the comment section began to
| dominate. Their straight news reporting is generally pretty
| good. I read it even though I'm not at all aligned with the
| politics of many of the writers.
| the_biot wrote:
| They did a piece once on a subject with which I'm very
| familiar (a fairly controversial thing that happened in my
| city). They asked for feedback from the public at large
| before publishing it, and I filled out the questionnaire.
|
| What came out was a disgrace. Straight up propaganda,
| writing up only the exact words of the only person they
| interviewed -- easily the most controversial person in the
| entire city. But you see, he's far left and entirely in
| line with The Guardian's agenda.
|
| I will never read The Guardian again. It is not a
| newspaper; it's a propaganda rag of no news value.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I once subscribed to NYT. Canceling required a phone call, and
| the guy laughed out loud at me when I refused what amounted to a
| nearly free 6 month extension. Made me so mad, they'll never have
| me as a customer again.
|
| I also decided I would never buy another subscription to a news
| site that also has advertising. In my perception, ads seem to be
| predictive of low quality journalism.
|
| Most recently I've had an Economist subscription. I like them.
| They don't make canceling as easy as subscribing, and I do hold
| that against them, though they aren't as terrible as NYT.
|
| But honestly, I let that subscription lapse and I don't buy any
| news right now. I actively avoid it, in fact. My sanity and
| happiness needed a break from the drip-drip-drip of negative
| stressful world events that I have exactly zero control over.
| tootie wrote:
| There's no incentive to ever make cancellation easy nor any
| incentive to make cancellers feel valued.
| indigochill wrote:
| Of course there is. If you piss someone off while they're
| cancelling, it's less likely you'll get repeat business.
| People cancel and then renew subscriptions on all kinds of
| things all the time.
| cube2222 wrote:
| I've also had that experience at one point (cancelling NYT sub
| over the phone).
|
| Then there was a big discount, I bought it again, wasn't
| reading it again, so cancelled it recently again...
|
| and this time there was actually a button in the UI to do it in
| a few seconds. Might be related to me being in the EU though.
| zja wrote:
| Forcing you to talk to someone to unsub is a gross dark
| pattern, but fwiw, I used the live chat and it wasn't that bad.
| bombcar wrote:
| This is the way I'd go - subscribe to publications that don't
| have advertising, or have minimal, and subscribe to ones that
| are monthly if possible, weekly at worst.
|
| The reality is you do NOT need the day-to-day news, anything
| that's important will still be talked about in a month.
| atmosx wrote:
| I always use cards I can freeze or PayPal and the like, so I
| don't have to call anyone, I just freeze the card or stop
| recurring payments via PayPal.
| mywacaday wrote:
| I've been through that twice but now I'm on a $1 a month
| subscription which is worth it even if I read nothing some
| months.
| benjaminbachman wrote:
| I like the New York Times but I was infuriated by the
| unsubscribe process. I also turned down a super cheap
| extension.
|
| I am now subscribed via the Google Play store, which means the
| NYT loses a big chunk of the money, all so I can be guaranteed
| an easy cancellation button.
| lawgimenez wrote:
| I can easily cancel from the nytimes.com website by going to
| my account settings.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That must be new, maybe in response to some recent FTC
| opinions that every web site should have a cancelation
| option that was equivalently easy to the subscribe option.
| Used to be you could only cancel over the phone.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| California address.
| oxfeed65261 wrote:
| I just now unsubscribed from NYT, in response to this
| thread. I had to do an online chat, but at least it wasn't
| an overly prolonged process. I am quite certain that I did
| not have an option to unsubscribe from account settings.
|
| I also unsubscribed from The Washington Post. It did have a
| non-chat-based unsubscribe option, which I greatly
| appreciated.
|
| I also unsubscribed from The Economist. It was the worst.
| They went through multiple but-here's-an-even-better-deal
| stuff, then tried to subscribe me to email newsletters.
|
| Thanks, HN, for the incentive to do this; I had meant to
| for some time.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I didn't have any trouble cancelling the NYT. My credit card
| number changed, and that was that :-)
| xeromal wrote:
| That sounds like tremendous trouble if you have your card
| on any sites like Amazon.
| WalterBright wrote:
| It was indeed a nuisance, but when a fraudulent
| transaction appeared on my statement, it had to be done.
| I just found it convenient to not update the card on the
| NYT.
| silisili wrote:
| Virtual cards are great for this. My brother keeps
| recommending privacy.com, I need to look into it.
| xeromal wrote:
| I used virtual cards for decades. PayPal had a Firefox
| extension that did this in the early aughts.
|
| I used getfinal.com for several years too but they went
| bankrupt. I don't even try anymore
| cgriswald wrote:
| I had a newspaper send me to collections when I tried that;
| over a matter of about $18 for newspapers they never
| delivered because I hadn't paid.
| WalterBright wrote:
| The NYT cut me off when the old card got declined, so if
| they had sent it to a collection agency, I would have
| disputed it.
| thetopher wrote:
| I will never subscribe to the NYT again. Unsubscribing was an
| infuriating process.
|
| I love The Economist, and their podcasts. I've never had to
| unsubscribe because I just pre-pay for 1-year subscription
| offers that I find on Slickdeals.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I decided (other than this site) to actively avoid all news
| that has a comment section.
| sshine wrote:
| > My sanity and happiness needed a break from the drip-drip-
| drip of negative stressful world events that I have exactly
| zero control over.
|
| I used to be engaged in politics (volunteering at elections,
| doing administrative parliamentary work, community boards, and
| having opinions about matters). Becoming apolitical has removed
| a burden in my life. I don't watch horror movies, and I don't
| watch the news. I don't subscribe to anxiety and violence, and
| I just accept and cherish that there is peace in my area of the
| world.
|
| I followed the Ukraine war out of a sense of necessity; I have
| friends who went to the border to help refugees cross and
| prevent human trafficking. If you're not doing something like
| that, I'm not sure that the combined violence and pain in the
| world is something we, on average as individuals of our
| species, are well-equipped to handle.
| threatofrain wrote:
| I think the difficulty of following news with any sense of
| fluency, not to mention more in-depth technical issues like
| energy and ecology, makes me think that democracy is at its
| stressing point. Education alone cannot be the answer --
| unless we think we can educate people to the point of being
| _general_ experts on such a broad but critical slate of
| issues like energy, geopolitical strategy, domestic
| healthcare, etc.
|
| Perhaps the future of democracy is made of voters who
| subscribe to institutions of intellectual or moral
| credibility that tell people directly how to vote (churches,
| policy groups) rather than a firehose of content where you
| make up your own mind on how to vote. It _sounds_ more anti-
| intellectual than it is, but many people are already
| cognitively and emotionally maxed out.
| [deleted]
| mythopedia wrote:
| Seems like in an ideal world political parties would be the
| "institutions of intellectual or moral credibility that
| tell people directly how to vote". Of course, in the
| current United States that doesn't work because there is a
| practical limit of 2 major parties, and neither are really
| bastions of intellectual or moral credibility.
|
| I'm not super well-versed in non-US politics, so I wonder
| if there is any democracy where parties actually work in
| that ideal way?
| juve1996 wrote:
| I don't think things are much different than they were,
| say, 100 years ago. Back then there was a dearth of
| information, so you needed representatives, or parties, to
| vote in your interest when you had to do other things.
|
| Now we have a glut of information, but the problem is the
| same - there are so many topics, it's hard to prioritize
| and determine what is necessary or important.
|
| Look at our government. We have committees, and experts
| brought to those committees to help them draft law. Instead
| of trying to be an expert in everything, we should focus on
| what we want to be experts in, moving forward in these
| areas and trusting those working in other areas to do
| what's best. There is no other realistic path.
| t0bia_s wrote:
| It is hard to trust any expert/gonverment if main
| motivation is profit. Look what is happening right now.
| Poor are more poor and rich are getting rich even more.
| So, naturally, trust in expertise is relative if it
| cannot bring you food for survive.
| quartesixte wrote:
| > Perhaps the future of democracy is made of voters who
| subscribe to institutions of intellectual or moral
| credibility that tell people directly how to vote
|
| It already is this way, and has been this way for
| centuries. Be it religion, ethnic identity, economic class,
| geographic loyalty, or political ideologies. The average
| voter is not an independent minded participant.
|
| Political parties. Community Organizations. The Political
| Machines of the Gilded Age and the Unions of the late
| industrial.
|
| Human nature never changes. Democracy just gives us a
| chance to have a say in how society harnesses that nature,
| rather than a small group of people born into power because
| their ancestors were part of the inner circle of victors in
| the war that established their nation.
|
| Edit: I'm big believer in democracy and republics, but a
| really cynical take on the whole system is "the peasants
| get a chance to choose who which aristocrat rules
| them...and occasional elevate one of their own."
| corrral wrote:
| Very little news _needs_ to be followed to be a good
| citizen of a democracy. Local news, sure, on perhaps a
| weekly or monthly basis (i.e. you probably don 't need to
| check in every day). National, state level (at least for
| states that aren't so tiny that state news _is_ local
| news), and international, perhaps quarterly, but you don 't
| really need much of that.
|
| A better use of time for someone wanting to be a good
| citizen would be reading major books and papers in
| political philosophy, political science, international
| relations, public policy, economics, statistics, media
| studies, history, et c. Not the news.
| juice_bus wrote:
| I had a similar ordeal cancelling The Economist subscription in
| 2020.
|
| I had to call someone (offshore) who tried to retain me with
| months free, and then started trying to push emails (???) which
| I explicitly said no to... and then they turned them all on
| anyway when I cancelled. I don't have a way to turn them off so
| they go straight to spam now ("unsubscribe" doesn't work, and I
| don't care enough to escalate any further)
|
| Never subscribing for news again - they're killing themselves
| at this point.
| cgriswald wrote:
| I wonder if it is still possible to subscribe by mail. I
| originally subscribed that way awhile ago, but within the
| last couple of years let my subscription lapse and that was
| the end of it (other than the frequent letters trying to get
| me to re-subscribe).
| the_biot wrote:
| Yup, The Economist are terrible spammers. I tried many many
| times to get them to stop sending me all that garbage about
| their events and whatever, and they just don't do it.
| Fortunately I have an email address custom to them, so I just
| deleted it. Now when my subscription lapses I won't get the
| notifications.
|
| Here's the thing about The Economist: everything they do that
| is not related to journalism is a complete shitshow.
| Subscriptions, phone app, spamming, just awful.
| nindalf wrote:
| I can't say I've had an issue with spam. I remember
| receiving a few emails that I unsubscribed from. The link
| at the bottom of the email worked.
|
| Phone app - subjective, but it's one of the few I allow on
| my phone.
| Veen wrote:
| It's a little easier now. They have a chat interface. When I
| cancelled recently I included "I'm not interested in offers
| for reduced price subscriptions" in my first message. They
| didn't push it and my subscription was canceled 5 minutes or
| so.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| For WSJ if you change your billing address to California you
| can cancel online. I dunno if that's true for every
| subscription, though.
| Melatonic wrote:
| I subscribe to a big paper in the city I live in (like, the
| actual sunday paper delivery). I tried to explain MULTIPLE
| times to their support people that I did not want all of the
| extra advertisement crap that came with the paper (pretty
| standard with any paper - not the small amount of
| ads/classifieds in the paper itself - all of the extra
| pamphlets they include)
|
| Their support people could just not even comprehend WHAT I was
| even talking about - they kept circling back to "pop-up ads"
| and if I had tried a pop-up blocking extension. It was a never
| ending circle of confusion :-D
| paulcole wrote:
| > I tried to explain MULTIPLE times to their support people
| that I did not want all of the extra advertisement crap that
| came with the paper
|
| Is this even an option they offer or just one you wished
| existed?
| Melatonic wrote:
| No idea but I figured I might as well try. I would have
| been willing to pay a few bucks extra if it was -
| relatively cheap just for sunday delivery as it is. Mainly
| thought it was funny they were so confused
| paulcole wrote:
| It's not like asking to leave pickles off your burger.
| I'm kind of amazed that anybody would make this request
| and think it reasonable but shoot your shot I guess.
| cgriswald wrote:
| We started receiving the Sunday paper from one of the local
| papers around here. We all checked our accounts and none of us
| had been charged. We didn't get mail, email, or anything else
| from this paper. Originally I thought it must have been someone
| else's newspaper, so I just left it out there to see if anyone
| came asking and also asked a couple neighbors, but nothing.
| Figured whoever it was would call the paper and complain, but
| this went on for about 12 Sundays and ended up resolving itself
| somehow (maybe the subscription lapsed?). Just ended up
| throwing them in the recycling as a matter of course.
|
| There was no way in hell I was going to bother with a call to
| the newspaper. They'd be confused for the first half of the
| conversation, then even if they figured it out, they'd spend
| the second half trying to sell _me_ a subscription, like I wasn
| 't already getting it for free.
| wollsmoth wrote:
| I'm actually fairly happy with NYT. They still cover most topics,
| although generally I agree they aren't as great as they were.
| They are pretty much my local paper too I guess.
|
| I like to stop by a news stand and pick up an Atlantic, or New
| Yorker from time to time, and whatever else seems interesting.
| ricardoplouis wrote:
| Try to support your local news service first if possible.
| nomilk wrote:
| None.
|
| I set up shell twitter accounts for each issue I'm interested in,
| follow all the relevant people, take a month or so to adjust by
| deleting irritating flame baiters and accumulate a few sharers of
| high quality information.
|
| Twitter's algorithm recommends a bunch of similar content, but
| because I only follow one issue per twitter account, it's all (or
| mostly) on topic, without distractions.
|
| Use web archive to get around paywalls, uBlock Origin to remove
| the irrelevant parts of the twitter web UI, and Video Speed
| Controller to quickly watch video content at 2, 3, or 4x speed.
|
| This gives a quick, easy, and extremely effective way to scan
| important info on a topic. Since many "news" sites get their
| material from social media anyway, you just get the "news" a
| little earlier than everyone else by going to source. It's more
| cumbersome than Zite (remember that?), but very effective.
|
| For this to work you must be ruthless about navigating around
| attention sinks (like worthless twitter squabbles).
| bergenty wrote:
| Why would some random internet user have better news than
| literal companies dedicated to it? This sounds more like you're
| creating a misinformation bubble rather than objective
| information.
| nomilk wrote:
| 50-100 good sources on a topic is arguably a lot more
| expertise than most newsrooms have available, especially if
| they're approximately single topic tweeters, and considering
| they probably aren't only tweeting their own original
| thoughts but also providing other ideas (e.g. articles,
| videos etc) by others.
|
| Presuming the minds you follow have the same concern (to take
| on uncomfortable, ambiguous, and challenging ideas), then the
| approach is already far ahead of virtually all publications
| I'm aware of, including the most upvoted ones on this thread
| (economist, for example), since they all have problems too:
| revenue incentives for one, which shapes what they can and
| cannot report on, a need to produce content to fill pages
| (e.g. manufacturing drama), bias towards sensational but
| unimportant topics etc.
|
| Also, Twitter is somewhat self regulating, at least, more so
| than "news" sites. Since an author of a news article may face
| little backlash for biased or wrong information, whereas on
| Twitter it takes only a few seconds to get a whiff that
| something's not right (scan replies for compelling counter
| arguments, look who endorses via retweet/like etc).
| runjake wrote:
| I'd recommend avoiding the news. As far as I can tell, the news
| exists to sell ads.
|
| That said, if you still want to read the news and have access to
| an Apple device, why not consider Apple News+? It's just about
| the only news service I'm aware of where you can cancel your
| subscription without any hassle and you get multiple news sources
| to boot.
|
| NYT, WSJ, Economist and all the other commonly-recommended news
| places are a hassle to cancel.
| sofixa wrote:
| > I'd recommend avoiding the news. As far as I can tell, the
| news exists to sell ads
|
| The ask in this Ask HN is literally about subscription news,
| which rarely have ads ( for instance FT do, but they're ads for
| conferences and stuff they run, so it's kind of acceptable).
|
| > That said, if you still want to read the news and have access
| to an Apple device, why not consider Apple News+?
|
| Same with Google News/Play, subscribing/unsubscribing is quite
| easy.
| res0nat0r wrote:
| New Yorker is kind of expensive, but a new issue every week with
| usually a very interesting and long 10-12 page in depth article
| is great. I look forward to a new issue arriving in my mailbox
| every week.
|
| The Washington Post is only $5/month if you're an Amazon Prime
| member.
| somberi wrote:
| I subscribe to :
|
| The Economist
|
| The Guardian (voluntary)
|
| Financial Times
|
| Barron's
|
| WSJ
|
| Cook's Illustrated
|
| NY Times
|
| Bloomberg
|
| I find each of them useful in their own way.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-17 23:01 UTC)