- Jul 11, 2001
- 37,502
- 8,097
- 136
I didn't for many years although we always had the L.A. Times in the house where I grew up. My dad would sit behind it in the den, he was an intellectual.
I had a roommate who subscribed to the S.F. Chronicle and I took it up, have pretty much gotten a newspaper for the last 20+ years. When the Chronicle jacked up their prices a ton around 10 years ago I went over to the Oakland Tribune. The Tribune's writing is pretty good, lots of good writers on staff and many articles from the NY Times, Associated Press, Washington Post. In this sense, it's similar to the Chronicle.
I got the Tribune very cheaply for many years, under $30/year, but suddenly they more than doubled the price around 6 months ago (I think it was 4x) so when I was offered the SF Chronicle on trial at $26 for 13 weeks, I went for that. For a period this year I got both.
Well, I don't think the writing in the Chronicle is better particularly, and living in the East Bay the Tribune's local coverage is better from my perspective but the glaring difference between the two papers is simply the quality of the printing itself. The Chronicle is clean, no smudges, no smears, almost always almost looks like a magazine printed on pulp. And the Chronicle's paper is quite a bit lighter than the Tribune's. Not in terms of weight, but in terms of reflectivity. The Tribune's paper seems like it's badly reprocessed recycled paper. The photos in the Chronicle are 2 orders of magnitude better than the Tribune's. The Tribune suffers from very frequent bad printing, pages where there are ink smears or where the ink has gotten so thin it gets pretty hard to read.
I know a lot of you people are going to say that newspapers are old fashioned and stuff like that. But I think it's a lot easier to canvas a wide array of current information from a newspaper than an online resource.
When I am on a computer (which has to be better access than you can get from a smartphone or tablet with their reduced sized screens), I'm always distracted by ads or featured story-blurb-links that smack of tabloids that you might see in lower class market checkouts.
I also subscribe to the NY Times Blog on my Kindle for $2/month. It has a new series of 15-20 stories daily. Some of the stories are New York centric, but most are not really.
I had figured to go back to the Tribune when the Chronicle trial was over because the Chronicle actually wanted over $600 for a year's subscription! Turns out they offered me the paper for $104/year, which works out to only slightly more than the Tribune's offer of $78/year when you consider that the Chronicle publishes daily and the Tribune only 6 days/week. I wasn't sure but one day I just realized that I only have one pair of eyes and reading the Tribune is just hard work compared to the Chronicle what with the horrible quality of the printing and paper.
I had a roommate who subscribed to the S.F. Chronicle and I took it up, have pretty much gotten a newspaper for the last 20+ years. When the Chronicle jacked up their prices a ton around 10 years ago I went over to the Oakland Tribune. The Tribune's writing is pretty good, lots of good writers on staff and many articles from the NY Times, Associated Press, Washington Post. In this sense, it's similar to the Chronicle.
I got the Tribune very cheaply for many years, under $30/year, but suddenly they more than doubled the price around 6 months ago (I think it was 4x) so when I was offered the SF Chronicle on trial at $26 for 13 weeks, I went for that. For a period this year I got both.
Well, I don't think the writing in the Chronicle is better particularly, and living in the East Bay the Tribune's local coverage is better from my perspective but the glaring difference between the two papers is simply the quality of the printing itself. The Chronicle is clean, no smudges, no smears, almost always almost looks like a magazine printed on pulp. And the Chronicle's paper is quite a bit lighter than the Tribune's. Not in terms of weight, but in terms of reflectivity. The Tribune's paper seems like it's badly reprocessed recycled paper. The photos in the Chronicle are 2 orders of magnitude better than the Tribune's. The Tribune suffers from very frequent bad printing, pages where there are ink smears or where the ink has gotten so thin it gets pretty hard to read.
I know a lot of you people are going to say that newspapers are old fashioned and stuff like that. But I think it's a lot easier to canvas a wide array of current information from a newspaper than an online resource.
When I am on a computer (which has to be better access than you can get from a smartphone or tablet with their reduced sized screens), I'm always distracted by ads or featured story-blurb-links that smack of tabloids that you might see in lower class market checkouts.
I also subscribe to the NY Times Blog on my Kindle for $2/month. It has a new series of 15-20 stories daily. Some of the stories are New York centric, but most are not really.
I had figured to go back to the Tribune when the Chronicle trial was over because the Chronicle actually wanted over $600 for a year's subscription! Turns out they offered me the paper for $104/year, which works out to only slightly more than the Tribune's offer of $78/year when you consider that the Chronicle publishes daily and the Tribune only 6 days/week. I wasn't sure but one day I just realized that I only have one pair of eyes and reading the Tribune is just hard work compared to the Chronicle what with the horrible quality of the printing and paper.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter