Does anyone read a weekly printed news publication? If so, which and why?
I was nervous to post this in ~news, because it's more of a question than a story, but here goes.
I'm looking to turn down the temperature, pace, and volume of my news consumption habits, as well as limit how much time I stare at a screen (I do that enough professionally). I've recently experimented with subscribing to fewer, higher-quality news sources and getting them delivered via RSS*. This works pretty well, but I'm still left looking for something even slower. Something like a weekly news publication, which is delivered once a week in a print format that I can read away from a screen.
I've subscribed to Sunday papers in the past, but it's too much and there's a lot in it - I think I'm looking for a little .. less. A slimmer publication, fewer pages. Almost as if someone selected the top five to seven stories covered on the Wikipedia current events page in the week, then wrote a few thousand words apiece on each. Something I can make it through with my coffee on Sunday mornings in a few hours.
Does anyone do this or have recommendations? If so, what do you read and how would you assess that publication? I think I've tried a fair number in the past, but I will take anyone's suggestions. Thank you so much in advance.
--
*I use Reeder for macOS / iOS - which is great btw, and it's shocking how much of the modern web still supports RSS. Highly recommend folks reconsider RSS in general.
Huge fan of The New Yorker. The price has gone up steadily over the years, but it's the one publication I still subscribe to, and love. The longform articles and in depth reporting have ruined me for most every other news source. Hope they continue to thrive and put out the quality that they have been for decades.
The New Yorker has always intrigued me so much as somebody living in the U.K.; it seems to occupy a similar space as the London Review of Books, however the brief glimpses I do see of that publication indicate a charm, an integrity, a bit of magic that has me envy your luck over there in accessing such an important source of journalism. How accessible do you think that The New Yorker is to somebody on the other side of the world?
It's American but I don't think overly so - as long as you're interested in reading thoughtful pieces I think you'll enjoy it. I don't know LRB well but I'd say it feels slightly more in its own humanities / academic-y bubble, while the New Yorker feels (slightly) closer to real life (in a good way).
FWIW I'm also UK based.
Long time New Yorker reader from Singapore. Just ignore the New York centric stuff at the front. The long form journalism articles are universally applicable.
Agree with what the others said -- it has some NY-centric short form things, but the majority of their most valuable and interesting articles are much broader than NY or the US. Some of the best writers in the world author many of their pieces.
The beginning section on what's going on in NYC may not be of interest to you, but their long-form journalism, fiction, and reviews are all accessible to a global audience, I'd say. Definitely worth trying.
I'll second the New Yorker. I've been absolutely blown away by their long-form journalism. I don't really care for their 'humor', but their main articles are good enough to keep me subscribed.
If you hunt around, you can get some pretty good deals. I'm currently paying something like $1 an issue for 26 weeks. If you don't mind reading online, it's also available through Libby from a lot of libraries.
I think that it’s included with Apple News+ as well.
I'm also a huge fan. Whether it's Ted Chiang's recent entries about large language models (it is a blurry JPEG of the web, isn't it?), or this longform essay about caterpillars by Elizabeth Kolbert.
One of my coworkers is a contributor and he says, once you get off the slush pile, they spend so much time fact-checking and editing and compressing your words. Every line of dialogue has to be backed by an audio recording or a phone call to the speaker. Every fact has to be traced to a citation.
It is one of the few publications that feels like a pleasure, not a chore, to read. The downside, I think, is that they aren't a good place to read about oh-my-god-what-just-happened-today information. At the same time, I like that they aren't rushing to put things up online just for eyeballs.
Lastly, I see their tote bag all the time in NYC. And I get why -- for cheap subscriber merch, it's a really good tote bag.
My biggest issue with the New Yorker from when I subscribed was that weekly was too frequent for me. I’m a fairly slow reader and found that in addition to my usual reading, I just didn’t have time to get through all of the long form articles in each issue each week. This resulted in having a huge backlog that would just accumulate. I felt bad skipping any because I always enjoyed the writing, but there was just too much for me to handle.
Thats why I cancelled my subscription initially but I'm back on board after consciously making the decision to not feel obliged to read everything. The app actually helps because it puts the big news stories front and centre and then I can look through the weekly magazine in short bursts through the week.
It says a lot about the staff who can put out a magazine of that caliber week after week.
Very true. Having too much high quality content sounds like the opposite of a problem, but I was going to be buried in unread magazines.
Are you someone who prefers reading each issue entirely? I was in when during my time as a print-only subscriber. After a while, like you, the magazines piled up.
I shifted my habit: When a new issue came, I flipped to the table of contents and picked out the stories that seemed remotely interesting and bookmarked them, with the goal of reading them by the end of the week. Some weeks, only one story stood out; other weeks, I had up to five read. This helped me keep pace. Unfortunately, even that fell to the wayside and I settled with a digital-only subscription. I sometimes miss reading the physical issues but not the clutter they contributed.
I think that's a fair issue. I have at times had similar problems -- nowadays I'm a digital subscriber and just read whatever long form articles spark my interest on their website. That's felt more manageable and I don't have piles of half read New Yorkers lying around anymore.
I do miss the physical copies though, the cover art was usually incredible.
Okay, thanks all that provided comments about The New Yorker. This is something that I have not checked out before, but I have seen it turn up quite a bit in links that people post in various places. I'm not sure I'm really looking for NYC-specific happenings, or fiction, or book reviews, but perhaps I'll try to find a copy and give it a shot.
One thing that does resonate deeply with me too is the mention below of the time it takes to get through a weekly onslaught of really good long-form writing; it's a lot. I really wanted to accomplish this reading in a few hours every week on a Sunday morning, and then be "up to date" enough that I'm generally aware of what's happening. Perhaps I could just sort of pick and choose what to read each week and skip the uninteresting, but then the creeping sense of "wasted money" starts to percolate... that's something I'll have to think about.
It's going to sound silly, my my little town still has an honest to goodness weekly newspaper. Local news supported by local ads, and door-to-door distribution. About 14 pages per edition.
I read it in the washroom, and it keeps me abreast of what's going on in town. It's part of what I love about my home.
That's very relatable. My country has a few very upstanding, intelligent newspapers. They have driven and incorruptible journalists who sink their teeth in the dealings of sleazy politicians, tax fraud cases (like Panama & Pandora papers), organized crime (Sky ECC) and a lot of local political scandals and lawsuits that I'm not going to elaborate on. I buy them in print now and again to offset my 12ft.io usage.
I recently renewed my subscription to a newspaper that somehow holds a middle ground between quality journalism and utter, facebook-like, gossip. They have a bunch of local journalists and have excellent regional coverage. Apart from gossip and entertainment, they also write about what was decided in the last municipal council, roadworks, occasional happenstances or grievances amongst the local population and info about businesses opening or closing.
Lacking facebook, after hearing a loud bang or a bunch of sirens or, you know, anything out of the ordinary, my local newspaper often tells me the who, what and (sometimes) why before my facebook-enabled friends can bring me up to par with what (people on facebook told them) is really happening.
I should probably spend more money on quality journalism but regional news outlets are invaluable too.
Same here, and it's really such a wonderful break from headline news online. Most of the time nothing too exciting is happening locally so we frequently get articles on its frontpage about kids playing after school or somebody's new hobby project or the city planning a new park.
There is something about being entirely unplugged for an hour enjoying the weather and holding real paper that makes it such a great way to de-stress.
The Economist.
You can disagree with some of their economic ideologies, but it's an excellent summary of events in a week, and developments in a ton of different areas.
A focus on quality over decades pays off.
I can't speak to all their columns, but their recent coverage of the Eric Adams administration in NYC made me rage-unsubscribe from the magazine. I think it's a classic case of "this journalistic outlet seemed very intelligent up until they started covering the one thing I'm familiar with". I don't want to nitpick everything but you can see from this submission that it's not much more than repeating the talking points of the administration. It's shockingly uncritical of power for a journal of repute. People who have followed Adams since his time as borough president (one of the hardest jobs to mess up, as it very few responsibilities, and is much more akin to being a state dignitary) know to view everything he says and does with skepticism. The Economist didn't seem to do much of that background work.
I remember reading the magazine consistently in 2011-2012 and then again these past two years before quitting. I think their pivot to online content and the daily here's-what's-happening style of content has maybe drained some of the talent and focus from other areas. I think it's difficult to cover the nuances of niche areas, like NYC local politics (which, let's be honest, their readership probably doesn't care much about, so maybe it doesn't even make sense to go into the level of detail I want), in the short word count they afford articles these days. The word count is so much shorter than it used to be, I feel like!
Having recently cancelled my subscription after almost 20 years, this resonates strongly with me.
The Economist covers a wide variety of topics from around the world, which I really appreciate. They all seem reasonable, except for every time they report on something I know about intimately and I'm like "wait a minute, that's not a fair representation".
Now, to be fair, these are rather niche scientific topics and perhaps I'm being overly critical of a newspaper that has a global audience and focuses primarily on economy and geopolitics.
I don't know if they've changed or, much more likely, I have since subscribing as a senior in HS, but I just started to find their particular brand of free-market capitalism that bleeds into all their stories less and less appealing over time.
I certainly wouldn't say it's bad by any means, just not right for me any more.
I'm going to agree with the other commenters.
I have long heard The Economist held high as the pinnacle of journalism, and after subscribing for a few years in the past found anything but the opposite.
I think the majority of their articles are actually quite shallow, and as the others pointed out, when evaluated by someone with a deep knowledge on a particular topic that shallowness is quite apparent. Moreover, when I read journals of that sort (and I know it's not their primary aim), but I'm looking for high quality writers and writing, and am usually quite disappointed in that regard as well.
Thanks to all of those who have weighted in on The Economist, in one way or another. I actually share the sentiments of some of the replies - I used to read it a long time ago, and it was great, but I feel like the articles have gotten shorter and more superficial over time. Changing reader preferences, the "digitalization" of the magazine, hollowing out the paper writer corps, all may be contributors in one way or another, but that's also the feeling I get. This would have actually been my go-to answer initially and precluded even asking here, but I was sort of at a loss where to go next if The Economist wasn't it. It's an interesting impression that I'm glad to see others have as well.
On a scale slower than weekly, I have enjoyed my subscriptions to several quarterly magazines. Jacobin, Current Affairs, and Jewish Currents frequently have thought-provoking articles, and Current Affairs and Jewish Currents usually include some fun art as well. Very few ads in Jewish Currents and Jacobin. Current Affairs costs a bit more, but has no ads whatsoever. A quarterly magazine is also way cheaper than a weekly newspaper. They are great to bring along to read on a bus, in a cafe, or in a waiting room. It feels more deliberate to me, rather than finding something to scroll through on my phone, while still offering some variety since there are many articles to choose from within an issue.
If you want to cool things down, I would suggest that maybe you don't actually need national news on a weekly basis. A local paper can be much nicer, especially if it covers local events you can go to, advertises locally-owned businesses, and publishes op-eds about city-level politics. It is more practical to read "south street will be closed between 3rd and 6th street until Thursday", rather than "all public services closed in London for the coronation", for example (assuming you don't live or work in London). If something is happening that far away, you can afford to wait and hear about it next month, even if it is a big deal over there.
When was the last time you visited your local library? Lots of libraries carry local papers and magazines. They will typically offer previous issues for checkout, but keep the current issue for reading within the library. Even if reading in the library is not your jam, you might enjoy going there and browsing some local papers to see if there is one you want to subscribe to.
Thanks for the suggestions. I might try to buy a copy of Jacobin and see what I think; I have browsed Current Affairs before - in fact, they make available a copy or two at my local library as you also mentioned - but I think it's a bit too focused on politics and culture (that's their tagline, after all) and less on general global news, in a way that I'm looking for.
The Guardian Weekly is excellent. I had to unsubscribe because they couldn't promptly deliver to my country (I was getting editions two weeks late) but if you're in Europe, North America or Australia that shouldn't be an issue. It probably fits your top ten big issues of the week requirement.
The New Yorker is great too, although I went digital for that, although that's more general interest/long form journalism as opposed to news news.
The Economist is, of course, the classic weekly but it's bloody expensive.
The Guardian Weekly is something I did not know existed. I just posted above on my take regarding The Economist, sharing sentiments (similar to others) that it's perhaps become a little more superficial over time - I can't speak to the factual accuracy of articles, as some of those commenters have.
Have you Flocculencio read The Economist and, if so, how do you find the comparison in quality and depth of articles between them both? Or, for that matter, does anyone else have insight here?
I never subscribed to the Economist but I used to read it quite regularly. I agree broadly with what others have said- its quality has declined. A close friend of mine who does subscribe says they're not quite as on the pulse of current events as they used to be. They're quite overtly Classical Liberal if that's a factor.
(You didn't ask but IMO the New Yorker is actually really good at predicting the future. The articles can seem quite random but a year or two later an issue will flare up and I'll remember having read an analysis of it in the New Yorker. )
The Guardian Weekly is less...pompous? than the Economist which adopts an air of lordly objectivity. The easiest way of describing it is that it's closer to what Time used to be back in the day.
Okay, thanks very much. Perhaps I will see if I can find Guardian Weekly locally or purchase some short of short-term trial subscription.
I used to subscribe to the Private Eye, but it's only every two weeks, and very UK-centric, so it would be pretty rubbish if you don't live here.
It can be pretty disheartening even if you do live in the UK. It contains a constant stream of scandals and corruption that is hardly reported elsewhere. It should be mandatory reading for anyone that subscribes to a tabloid here. Not that its reporting is perfect. But that, in it, there aren't people protected from public scrutiny on account of their wealth/politics/connections/class.
I'm currently subscribed to Private Eye and the whiplash going from laughing at the satire, comics and stories where they're tearing into Crapita, or Piers Moron to the abject doom of stories about horrendous corruption from our elites and politicians gives me a sore neck.
Still a great magazine though and not too expensive getting the yearly subscription.
Growing up, my parents and grandparents always had The Week in the house and I’ve found it unbiased, global, bite sized, and easy to read.
I also endorse the local weekly papers as others have suggested. If not for the local events, then to feel closer to the community you live in.
Also a fan of The Week, I like that it mixes in different kinds of news, like tech/ entertainment/ culture along with US and global news.
This is less an answer than it is a question to those others here familiar therewith, but has anybody any experience with Delayed Gratification? A friend recommended it as a good quarterly source of print journalism, but I haven't had the chance to review a copy, and its title makes it seem more gimmicky than I'm sure that it really is!
Yes I had it for a few years and cancelled it in the end. It just wasn’t useful. They put far too much emphasis on making double page infographics for really trivial things. And the actual writing and journalism seemed amateur.
Most of the news looking back wasn’t very useful and there was very little insight.
What I expected was something like “here’s the last 3 months of events, here’s a long form piece about what happened” which they sort of did, but what was missing was the final step of “here’s what is happening, the impact of those events or the future plans after those events” I really would have liked that to put things into context. In the end the ratio of silly infographics to serious content got too much, I feel they got lazy. It ended up like a guiness book of infographics, with no real substance.
I really appreciate this—thank you. What you expected is what I expect, too, so it's quite disappointing that such a promising direction isn't followed through with the journalism for which one would hope therewith.
I'm sure that others exist with similar philosophies but less of a surface-level and superficial body, however in the dwindling world of media actually printed and distributed, I doubt that such things will really be seen.
When I was a kid, there used to be a magazine called "Reader's Digest", don't know if it's still around today or have they even maintained that quality as it has been many years!
As a kid when my parents would visit my grandparents the night would inevitably evolve into the adults talking about adult things so I'd go off on my own. Lowkey one of the things I looked forward to were the collection of Reader's Digest magazines they always had. I wouldn't always read every article and as I got older some of the articles seemed a little too artificiallly sweetened.
Whenever I happen upon a Reader's Digest I'm filled with nostalgic memories of my grandparents and those ling nights visiting.
I recommend Portal:Current Events on Wikipedia if you haven't seen it before. I don't think it's anywhere near comprehensive, and the focus is kind of scattershot (it is volunteers, I guess, after all), but here are two things that make it worth checking IMO:
Again, Wikipedia, factual accuracy, editor bias, highly non-diverse writers, I know. But the depth is extraordinary nevertheless.
I really like the current events portal, and in fact I cited it in my original post! I'm almost looking for someone to take the things that show up there, pick the top five to seven, and write a few thousand words for each of those stories. You're absolutely right that the depths to which you can go in Wikipedia (even with the caveats you mention, which I think you're right to do so) give it a richness that's hard to find elsewhere.
However, the other critical feature I'm looking for is something in print. I stare at screens all day professionally, and I'd really like to be able to get a weekly news roundup or digest in physical form. That's critical for me, and otherwise the current events portal would be precisely the direction I go.
New York Times is the only paper I still get delivered every morning.
Thank you, this is a great discussion as I've been thinking of going more "analog" and looking for slower long-form news -- I think that the short-attention-span and poorly edited Internet News is making me feel like I'm less informed and more reactionary. I was pondering this discussion over my morning coffee and thinking back to the days before the Internet -- I had more time to just read and think. I feel like I've lost something important.
A few years ago I was looking for long-form journalism and publications, but dropped the ball. This is a good reminder to go back to that search. The New Yorker was high on my list, and it's nice to see that many here feel the same, I think I'll go ahead and get the paper version -- we need to support real journalism, it seems to be a dying breed.
I'd love to hear people's input on these particular publications that I've been considering:
I'd like to find a more conservative source for balance, but most that I found that looked reasonable have been going extreme lately.
I've felt the same way for a while; honestly, what led me to posting this question about print news are some recent books I read, specifically on the topic of slowing down and being more deliberate with my attention and to what I devote it to. News for me is definitely included here (thus my initial foray with RSS, and now perhaps something even slower). I kind of see that in what you said (specifically: "I feel like I've lost something important"), so in case you wondered here were the ones I read and liked the most:
If you do happen to pick them up, I'd be interested to see if they (particularly 1 and 2) capture how you've been feeling about the matter.
--
*I read this book, but honestly I've read other Cal Newport books too and I feel like they could be universally condensed into a small series of longer essays posted to a blog or Substack or something. There's a lot of fluff in there, and folks like him take a lot of flack along the lines of "When you have an interesting idea, but need to make it into a whole book to make money, this is what you get."
Thanks for the book suggestions -- I'll definitely put them on my list, though the list is long and I'm currently in the middle of a 1200 page book that's been enjoyable, but taking a while to get through -- I haven't found my reading time to be as easy to come by as before, which is something that I need to change. I think that I read just as much as ever, just content of lower value. That's a long way to say, it might be a while before I get back to you. :)
EDIT: My local library has all three, only Essentialism in ebook form, the others in audiobook, but audiobook is good too, so I put holds on all of them. :)
The only actual newspaper that I read is The Echo. Its published by my big state college. I read it whenever I on campus. Occasionally I will read The Tower, but its published by the little christian college a few streets over.
In all honesty subscribe to your local newspaper's online publication. They only grab the top national stories and then all the local/state happenings. It helps keep print journalism alive and is normally under $20 a month. The bonus is that it's online so you can not read it for a few days and then go back and get the top stories from the website for the week. They normally put it in like a sidebar on the landing page.
I subscribe to two weekly publications: the New Statesman (generally social-democratic in outlook) and the Spectator (generally conservative in outlook). I also read the Financial Times's Weekend Magazine (generally liberal in outlook) as it comes with the weekend edition. I sometimes read the Times Literary Supplement, another weekly, as it's in the library I frequent.
I unsubscribed from The Economist recently as I didn't like its tone; I really don't like how it purports to have one narrative vision - aided by not naming its columnists - when the newspaper lurches from one stance on an issue to another from week to week. I can get enough in-depth world news and commentary from the FT, and the Statesman and Speccie tend to have arts and culture content which captivates my interest. That probably reflects more on me than anything else.
The Economist and Bloomberg Businessweek