Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Ask Slashdot: What Good Print Media Is Left?

Soulskill posted about 9 months ago | from the just-the-crap-in-my-mailbox-every-day dept.

Books 285

guises writes: "A recent story discussing the cover of Byte Magazine reminded me of just how much we've lost with the death of print media. The Internet isn't what took down Byte, but a lot of other really excellent publications have fallen by the wayside as a result of the shift away from the printed page. We're not quite there yet, though. There seem to still be some holdouts, so I'm asking Slashdot: what magazines (or zines, or newsletters, or newspapers) are still hanging around that are worth subscribing to?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Economist (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 9 months ago | (#46773943)

The Economist. Still worth reading.

Re:The Economist (2)

ADRA (37398) | about 9 months ago | (#46773965)

Yup, pretty much that and nothing else really. Long live the new flesh!

Re:The Economist (2, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about 9 months ago | (#46774557)

Dono If I believe that.

The Economist has always had a penchant for saying very little with the largest number of words.

If you sit down and try to outline one of their major articles, as I recently did, you will see how few points they actually try to make and the inordinate burden they imposed on the reader while making them. And its not like they provide quality supporting documentation to justify their points. Often they simply trout out half truths and over simplifications in point after point of seemingly endless paragraphs of supporting verbiage which provide little enlightenment.

Re:The Economist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774139)

I once subscribed to 3-5 publications important to me. Some rather expensive. I guess the last one I let go right around 5 years ago. Even the Economist is available as a digital edition.

I don't know of any myself. Done right digital versions offer some advantages print cannot. Does print offer any advantage over digital beyond not needing a powered device?

Re:The Economist (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774213)

Yes, you can roll up the newspaper or magazine and kill mosquitoes with it.

Re:The Economist (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 9 months ago | (#46774215)

Done right digital versions offer some advantages print cannot. Does print offer any advantage over digital beyond not needing a powered device?

One small disadvantage: When I was a kid, I remember a HUGE stack of National Geographic magazines that stat around my grandparents' house. Many of them dated back to IIRC the 1940's and 50's, and some older still... I could sit around as a kid in the 1970's and leaf through them, no problem.

Would we be able to, 30-40 years hence, be able to even open some of these digital mags without paying (again) for the privilege of doing so? What if the website dies off? What if archive.org didn't, well, archive it?

Paper may be inefficient at many things, but even magazine publishers that died off a long-assed time ago likely still have one or two copies of their editions floating around somewhere (even if it's sitting in a flea market or antique store...)

Re:The Economist (4, Insightful)

Panoptes (1041206) | about 9 months ago | (#46774391)

Old magazines are a complete sense experience. The brittle feel of the paper, the colour as it browns towards the edges of the pages, the (by now) quaint font and layout conventions, the style of language and changes in structure and word usage, idioms and expressions that are no longer current or fashionable; the smell of the paper, the tactile quality of the old covers and binding, the faint noise of opening a long-closed magazine. It's an aesthetic experience that gives the publication a sense of history, a view of another time.

Re:The Economist (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about 9 months ago | (#46774761)

Byte is great as a history book of how we got here, until about a year before its demise. It chronicled much, and it served many masters and interests with a lot of personality. It did ok online, but even that folded, and much of what UBM bought is dead, failed in the transition to online.

There are classic issues, but that was yesterday, and tomorrow much is going to be different. There are still new technologies, some advances, and more than enough cults of code and hardware, now bifurcated into traditional vs mobile computing. Add-in the Maker Movements, 3D printing, and what was once a handful of really creative geeks is now multiple disciplines of them. There's not an easy way to chronicle the computer industry, because it's now industries, reaching everywhere.

Byte served its purpose well. Long live Byte. Goodbye, Byte, Circuit Cellar, Pournelle, and so many other characters. Long live Ars Technica, Wired, GigaOm, and dozens of other sites like NetworkWorld, InfoWorld, The Register, and so forth. Print will never come back. You won't feel it in your hands until your foldable smartphone makes this comfy some day in the future-- to do again.

Re:The Economist (5, Insightful)

TheRealSteveDallas (2505582) | about 9 months ago | (#46774693)

It's also not so easy to put a revision on history when it's in physical copy to be referred to whenever needed. When all your historical documents are digital... how long before it's really possible to claim "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia"? That would be doubleplus ungood.

Re:The Economist (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 9 months ago | (#46774433)

You can wipe your ass with paper copies. Rip the pages out and cover the walls and windows of your house. Make paper mache with it. Cut up the headlines to make an old fashioned ransom note. Plenty of advantages to paper.

I have 1 subscription (3, Interesting)

jmd (14060) | about 9 months ago | (#46773953)


All I need.

National Geographic (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46773985)

Very good photography, good enough writing.

Re:National Geographic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774389)

I stopped NG a long time ago because it became a picture magazine that I could flip through in 10 minutes. The prose became an afterthought. My parents were very liberal regarding material that came into the house, provided it had merit and NF fit the bill. I was gifted a subscription from the age of 9 until 29, when I told my father it just wasn't worth it anymore. He had noticed it too. Instead of digesting one story in a day or two over the course of a week, I was flipping through in 20 minutes like I said earlier. This all played out from 1977 to 1992, IIRC. The very first magazines I received as a boy still had a trace of the leafy looking decoration around the cover.

Anyway, not to knock their photograph... but it came at the expense of the prose which made the magazine format less appealing. I understand I might be in a distinct minority here. It just reminds me too much of Life magazine now, and we all know how that went.

Re:National Geographic (1)

pooh666 (624584) | about 9 months ago | (#46774815)

I quit them because of their god aweful marketing machine. Junk snailmail from everything.

Who Cares? (1, Flamebait)

NReitzel (77941) | about 9 months ago | (#46773995)

Good print media?

Really. Local newspaper provides enough to wrap up stuff to ship, and a few sheets to use to light charcoal.

Other than that, who cares?

Re:Who Cares? (2)

reboot246 (623534) | about 9 months ago | (#46774185)

My local newspaper is down to printing only three days a week. Not too many years ago they printed two editions per day seven days a week. I subscribe to just the Sunday edition, but that's just to get the ads and the sports columns.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774477)

Good print media?

Really. Local newspaper provides enough to wrap up stuff to ship, and a few sheets to use to light charcoal.

Other than that, who cares?

Well, if you find yourself in a bind while taking a dump, you can wipe your ass with that print media after you're done thumbing through it.

(sorry, was fresh out of car analogies. Came up with this shitty one instead.)

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774663)

My parrot needs the Norwegian Times at the bottom of his cage, otherwise he's pining for the fjords.

TP (2)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 9 months ago | (#46774003)

They haven't started making digital toilet paper yet.

Toto Washlet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774697)

why let poor quality cellulosic products touch your tender nethermost region


Your local newspaper (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774007)

Nowhere else will you find detailed reporting regarding events and issues that may actually impact your life. Some have said that social media will kill local newspapers but I find that real news is still better covered by a reporter than by hearsay on my Facebook wall. Local reporters work hard to produce a paper every day (or every week, depending on your community), the least we can do is subscribe to their publication to help foot the bill of good reporting.

Re:Your local newspaper (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 9 months ago | (#46774043)

Here in Australia, my experience is that the genuinely local newspapers (limited to specific suburbs or council areas and usually available for free every week) are great as a way of finding out whats going on in the local area. The normal daily newspapers are full of crap and not worth reading.

Re:Your local newspaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774739)

That would be nice. All of my local papers are nothing but regurgitation of wire service stories. They don't have real reporting anymore. I would doubt there are more than a handful of newspapers left in the entire US that have any kind of reporting staff or any kind of real journalistic integrity.

The digital world isn't killing journalists. We don't have to print ink on dead trees to have real journalism. The medium is irrelevant. As long as people are out there asking questions and trying to find truth, we'll have journalism. Even if it's published on a website, a smartphone app, or anything else.

Lapham's Quarterly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774009)

http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/ is still putting out amazing topic-oriented journals printed on comfortable paper. Their current issue is about Revolutions and their previous issue was Comedy. The subscription cost is worth every penny.

Whatever you're interested in (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | about 9 months ago | (#46774017)

I like my tech magazines and news digital. I like my Muscle & Fitness and Popular Science in print. It's personal preference really.

Make Magazine (4, Insightful)

Rob Riggs (6418) | about 9 months ago | (#46774027)

Lots of good stuff. Byte could have morphed itself into this magazine.

Re:Make Magazine (1)

Shadyman (939863) | about 9 months ago | (#46774287)

+1 for Make

Re:Make Magazine (1)

rijrunner (263757) | about 9 months ago | (#46774683)

The thing is, Byte, Datamation, and a few others quit being really must read for techs long before the Internet really hit.

In the IT field back in the late 80's through about 2000, the scariest thing to see would be an executive with a glossy magazine..

Paecon (1, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | about 9 months ago | (#46774047)

You won't get the US centric perspective that you get from the economist.

http://www.paecon.net/ [paecon.net]

The Economist is British . . . (3, Informative)

Mr_Wisenheimer (3534031) | about 9 months ago | (#46774279)

. . . the last time I checked, the Economist was not a US publication. Does the BBC World News have a, "US centric perspective," too?

Re:The Economist is British . . . (0)

blahplusplus (757119) | about 9 months ago | (#46774483)

. . . the last time I checked, the Economist was not a US publication. Does the BBC World News have a, "US centric perspective," too?


(from citigroup memo download below)

http://pissedoffwoman.files.wo... [wordpress.com]
http://pissedoffwoman.files.wo... [wordpress.com]
http://pissedoffwoman.files.wo... [wordpress.com]

At the beginning of the first memo "Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances", the analysts introduce the subject:

Little of this note should tally with conventional thinking. Indeed, traditional thinking is likely to have issues with most of it. We will posit that:

1) the world is dividing into two blocs - the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest.

Plutonomies have occurred before in sixteenth century Spain, in seventeenth century Holland, the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties in the U.S. What are the common drivers of Plutonomy?

Disruptive technology-driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation, capitalist- friendly cooperative governments, an international dimension of immigrants and overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation, the rule of law, and patenting inventions. Often these wealth waves involve great complexity, exploited best by the rich and educated of the time.

2) We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more income inequality, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and globalization.

Citigroup explains how the "non-rich" consumers become increasingly irrelevant within the "plutonomies":

4) In a plutonomy there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or “the UK consumer”, or indeed the “Russian consumer”. There are rich consumers, few in
number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.

There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie. Consensus analyses that do not tease out the profound impact of the plutonomy on spending power, debt loads, savings rates (and hence current account deficits), oil price impacts etc, i.e., focus on the “average”consumer are flawed from the start. It is easy to drown in a lake with an average depth of 4 feet, if one steps into its deeper extremes. Since consumption accounts for 65% of the world economy, and consumer staples and discretionary sectors for 19.8% of the MSCI AC World Index, understanding how the plutonomy impacts consumption is key for equity market participants.

The analysts of Citigroup then invent a new term - "The New Managerial Aristocracy":


Let’s dive into some of the details. As Figure 1 shows the top 1% of households in the U.S., (about 1 million households) accounted for about 20% of overall U.S. income in 2000, slightly smaller than the share of income of the bottom 60% of households put together. That’s about 1 million households compared with 60 million households, both with similar slices of the income pie!

Clearly, the analysis of the top 1% of U.S. households is paramount. The usual analysis of the “average” U.S. consumer is flawed from the start. To continue with the U.S., the top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better(or worse, depending on your political stripe) - the top 1% of households account for 40% of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together.

This is data for 2000, from the Survey of Consumer Finances (and adjusted by academic Edward Wolff). Since 2000 was the peak year in equities, and the top 1% of households have a lot more equities in their net worth than the rest of the population who tend to have more real estate, these data might exaggerate the U.S. plutonomy a wee bit.

Was the U.S. always a plutonomy - powered by the wealthy, who aggrandized larger chunks of the economy to themselves? Not really.

Citigroup also makes clear what the CEO's of the world need: More money.

Society and governments need to be amenable to disproportionately allow/encourage the few to retain that fatter profit share. The Managerial Aristocracy, like in the Gilded Age, the Roaring Twenties, and the thriving nineties, needs to commandeer a vast chunk of that rising profit share, either through capital income, or simply paying itself a lot. We think that despite the post-bubble angst against celebrity CEOs, the trend of cost-cutting balance sheet-improving CEOs might just give way to risk-seeking CEOs, re-leveraging, going for growth and expecting disproportionate compensation for it. It sounds quite unlikely, but that’s why we think it is quite possible. Meanwhile Private Equity and LBO funds are filling the risk-seeking and re-leveraging void, expecting and realizing disproportionate remuneration for their skills.



Plutonomy, we suspect is elastic. Concentration of wealth and spending in the hands of a few, probably has its limits. What might cause the elastic to snap back? We can see a number of potential challenges to plutonomy.

The first, and probably most potent, is through a labor backlash. Outsourcing,
offshoring or insourcing of cheap labor is done to undercut current labor costs. Those being undercut are losers in the short term. While there is evidence that this is positive for the average worker (for example Ottaviano and Peri) it is also clear that high-cost substitutable labor loses.
Low-end developed market labor might not have much economic power, but it does have equal voting power with the rich. We see plenty of examples of the outsourcing or offshoring of labor being attacked as “unpatriotic” or plain unfair. This tends to lead to calls for protectionism to save the low-skilled domestic jobs being lost. This is a cause championed, generally, by left-wing politicians. At the other extreme, insourcing, or allowing mass immigration, which might price domestic workers out of jobs, leads to calls for anti-immigration policies, at worst championed by those on the far right.

To this end, the rise of the far right in a number of European countries, or calls (from the right) to slow down the accession of Turkey into the EU, and calls from the left to rebuild trade barriers and protect workers (the far left of Mr. Lafontaine, garnered 8.5% of the vote in the German election, fighting predominantly on this issue), are concerning signals. This is not something restricted to Europe. Sufficient numbers of politicians in other countries have championed slowing immigration or free trade (Ross Perot, Pauline Hanson etc.).


Then comes a key-part of the first "Plutonomy" memo: Plutonomy only works if the members of a society have the impression that they can still participate, despite the harsh inequalities, that they "can join it." The analysts use the term "robber-baron economies" and conclude that a "potential social backlash" is possible. Becoming a "Pluto-participant" is the "embodiement of the 'American Dream'" -and this dream should not die, otherwise the Plutocrats could be in real trouble.

A third threat comes from the potential social backlash. To use Rawls-ian analysis, the invisible hand stops working. Perhaps one reason that societies allow plutonomy, is because enough of the electorate believe they have a chance of becoming a Pluto-participant. Why kill it off, if you can join it? In a sense this is the embodiment of the “American dream”. But if voters feel they cannot participate, they are more likely to divide up the wealth pie, rather than aspire to being truly rich.

Could the plutonomies die because the dream is dead, because enough of society does not believe they can participate? The answer is of course yes. But we suspect this is a threat more clearly felt during recessions, and periods of falling wealth, than when average citizens feel that they are better off. There are signs around the world that society is unhappy with plutonomy - judging by how tight electoral races are.

But as yet, there seems little political fight being born out on this battleground.

A related threat comes from the backlash to “Robber-barron” economies. The population at large might still endorse the concept of plutonomy but feel they have lost out to unfair rules. In a sense, this backlash has been epitomized by the media coverage and actual prosecution of high-profile ex-CEOs who presided over financial misappropriation. This “backlash” seems to be something that comes with bull markets and their subsequent collapse. To this end, the cleaning up of business practice, by high-profile champions of fair play, might actually prolong plutonomy.

The second memo, titled "Revisiting Plutonomy: The Rich Getting Richer" deals mainly with the consequences for investments which follow the analysis in the first memo.

There are, in our opinion, two issues for equity investors to consider. Firstly, if we are right, that plutonomy is to blame for many of the apparent conundrums that exist around the world, such as negative savings, current account deficits, no consumer recession despite high oil prices or weak consumer sentiment, then so long as the rich continue to get richer, the likelihood of these conundrums resolving themselves through traditionally disruptive means (currency collapses, consumer recessions etc) looks low. The first consequence for equity investors who worry about these issues, is that the risk premia they ascribe to equities to reflect these conundrums/worries, may be too high.

Secondly, if the rich are to keep getting richer, as we think they will do, then this has ongoing positive implications for the businesses selling to the rich. We have called these businesses “Plutonomy stocks”. We see three reasons to take another look at those plutonomy stocks.

There's more but that's enough, I'm sure.

Re:The Economist is British . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774543)

The Economist is a *lot* more US-normative than most UK publications, yes. For one thing, a lot of their market is US; for another, they're generally proponents of the US and UK becoming more similar -- mostly by the UK changing.

Re:The Economist is British . . . (1)

dkf (304284) | about 9 months ago | (#46774673)

The Economist is a *lot* more US-normative than most UK publications, yes. For one thing, a lot of their market is US; for another, they're generally proponents of the US and UK becoming more similar -- mostly by the UK changing.

Having bought the Economist in various places around the world, you should be aware that the apparent focus of the magazine is different in different places. The content is formally the same, the articles are identical, but the ordering is not; this changes surprisingly strongly how one feels it is centric towards one place or another. Always buy in the US? It will be US centric. It's quite different in France.

Re:Paecon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774641)

Thank goodness I don't get a US centric perspective from the Economist. I read it for the same reason I sometimes watch Al Jazeera: it's good journalism from a perspective I need to understand to function well in the big wide world.

Re:Paecon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774701)

"it's good journalism from a perspective I need to understand to function well in the big wide world."

Nope, you see it through the lens of what you want to believe to be true unfortunately. Science has shown, people can't reason worth a damn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

P0RN (1)

Trachman (3499895) | about 9 months ago | (#46774055)

P0RN is will always be a good niche for certain type of clientele. Leaves no electronic trace also, does not require electricity and information in such type of magazines will rarely result in additional search in internets.

The Guardian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774063)

The Guardian is always worth a read.

"print" vs "digital" is pointless distinction (4, Insightful)

globaljustin (574257) | about 9 months ago | (#46774083)

TFA has it all wrong from the start.

The problem is, from a cybernetic perspective, the internet is just words, pictures and video at the presentation layer...

**its not inherently different** The **channel** for the information is different, but it's the same type of information

both a print & digital news requires a *reporter* and *editor*

a blog can never be the "paper of record"...it has to be an institutional entity with accountability

yes, of course the transition to digital formats was **mismanaged** by the non-journalism side of most news operations, but that is because the businesspeople made the same mistake TFA makes...thinking a digital news story is somehow inherently different b/c the channel is different

Re:"print" vs "digital" is pointless distinction (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about 9 months ago | (#46774315)

Your point is only true in theory, but not in fact. Because of how it evolved, the Internet broke the culture of willingness to pay for journalism. This has turned out to have some bad consequences - namely a decline in quality, and the dominance of ad-supported information, and unthinking acceptance of the ad-supported press.

Re:"print" vs "digital" is pointless distinction (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774327)

The channel can make all the difference. Remember when software distribution and patching was done with floppy disks? When bugs were hard to patch you're damn right there were fewer bugs. Now software distribution is fast and patching is easy. This didn't make software more reliable, it just made it more buggy. It's just like Jevons Paradox.

With print media you have lots of eyes looking at the quality of the final printed page because, let's face it, once it goes out of the door the only thing that can follow is massive embarrassment if you get it wrong. A blog on the other hand can be edited, patched and fixed quite easily. The same thing happens...the quality goes right down.

I still see print as being a higher standard and a higher quality. Heck, even the BIOS setup screens of some PCs contain some raging typos and Engrish. That code is on flash ROM and we still believe we don't need to fix it. Or we don't believe we need to fix it yet. Or ever.

Your local newspaper. (5, Interesting)

SocialEngineer (673690) | about 9 months ago | (#46774089)

Disclaimer: I've worked for 2 newspapers, and currently work for a media company (in the online division).

Why? Because a local newspaper is going to cover more relevant info, with more details, than numerous other mediums. It's an at-your-leisure consumption device, too.

I get the Sat. & Sun. local papers here. The Sat. for general weekend news, and the Sun. for big feature stories. Our paper frequently has some amazing local content; I recall a great 2 page spread on a local barbershop, and when one of the historic buildings burned down, they had almost daily coverage on the progress.

Plus, it's great for information on important city council stuff. Our city has been having the Great Trash Debate for some time, and now it's finally coming to a close (trying to figure out if trash pickup should be privatized, or if they should increase the cost of trash stickers to cover rising costs of maintenance for the trucks).

If you live in a major metro area, seek out the smaller hyper-local publications for your area.

Re:Your local newspaper. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774791)

The local newspaper here is 8 - 12 pages, with only 2 pages of news, the rest ads and local sports. If you don't follow the local high school sports teams theres nothing of interest.

Magazines (1)

slapout (93640) | about 9 months ago | (#46774101)

For .Net developers:

Code Magazine [codemag.com]
MSDN Magazine [microsoft.com]
DNC Magazine [dotnetcurry.com] (Not a print magazine, but it is a PDF that you can print out.)

General Computing:

CPU Magazine (not as good as it used to be, but still not bad)
Maximum PC

My local bookstore carries quite a few Linux magazines imported from Great Britain.

There are exactly two (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774117)

The Economist, and
The Christian Science Monitor

Wall Street Journal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774121)

If you read this everyday, you'll be amazed at how informed you will be.

Analog Science Fiction & Fact (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774137)

Definitely still worth a subscription today, as it has been for decades. Last I checked, the cost of a print subscription was the same as an electronic subscription; difference is, my kids are more likely to be able to read the print version in a decade.


Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774145)

i just renewed my WIRED subscription. it's still dirt cheap, is entertaining to read, and has a nice cover. yeah, it's about half ads, but whatevs. if you're not used to blocking ads, you're some sort of time-traveler from... hmm, when did we not have advertising?

Re:WIRED (1)

nullchar (446050) | about 9 months ago | (#46774273)

+1 for WIRED in paper format. The layout is beautiful and ever-changing.

Infoporn [google.com] anyone?

Archaeology, IEEE Spectrum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774153)

That's all we get in the mail. My wife got Mother Jones for a while.

I like Archaeology, it's pretty old school, even has classifieds in the back.

Re:Archaeology, IEEE Spectrum (2)

nospam007 (722110) | about 9 months ago | (#46774675)

"I like Archaeology, it's pretty old school,..."

It usually is.

Re:Archaeology, IEEE Spectrum (1)

lecoupdejarnac (1742408) | about 9 months ago | (#46774705)

+1 for Mother Jones, there aren't nearly as many organizations doing deep investigative reporting as there used to be.

The Atlantic Monthly (2)

quarnap (155151) | about 9 months ago | (#46774157)

The last of the general interest genre.

Dupe (1)

dovf (811000) | about 9 months ago | (#46774161)

A year ago almost to the day a very similar question was discussed here: http://ask.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org] But I'll respond the same way I did there: Science News [sciencenews.org] !

Re:Dupe (1)

unfortunateson (527551) | about 9 months ago | (#46774283)

Science News is available online, though.

The Pitchfork Review, SPIN Mag, Under the Radar (1)

DaBombDotCom (1587833) | about 9 months ago | (#46774171)

I subscribe to all three, they are fantastic. Music print media is still alive and strong in my opinion.

Niche publications... (2)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | about 9 months ago | (#46774175)

I write for and read a niche publication related to an obscure hobby of mine (related to model trains) and it actually sells very well and they still pay well for contributions. Mostly because the target audience is retirees who are of a generation that are used to and comfortable reading the printed page, and are happy to pay for it. Many of these people also supplement their subscription with online forum discussions, which has changed the nature of the magazine. The primary focus is on lengthy how-to articles that people would not normally compile for free and post online due to the time and effort involved, but are happy to put into print because they (and I) are being paid for it. Club announcements and updates and stuff are less needed thanks to online forums.

The one thing the magazine has not done is embraced a digital version and made their archives available digitally. One magazine that has done this to great effect is Model Railroader. Rather than collect stacks of back issues, you can now get the whole set online or on discs. One of the main issues depends on what the original contract with the writers looked like. If it did not have a 'and all future media' type clause, you would have to seek individual permission from each contributor to make the back issues available digitally. That has been one of the things holding back the particular magazine I write for. I myself am all in favor of making back issues available digitally. At the very least they could sell a digital edition beginning with new issues, with a new contract for the writers that includes it.

As far as mainstream periodicals, I occasionally like to pick up a Wall Street Journal or a New York Times when at an Airport, but 99.9% of my current news intake happens online these days. Financial Times of London is a good one, but again can be had online.

what I do read exclusively in printed form is books. I just like them, and I like to keep the best ones for re-reading later. Mine will be among the last generation to prefer this most likely.

Re:Niche publications... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774333)

As a highschool student who loves the smell of books but can see the writing on the wall, I'm going to say your generation is going to be the last to prefer to read books as well. Many of my fellows cannot read a proper book, nor can they focus on anything for more than a few minutes; but, maybe that will improve. I hope so.

Make and W.I.R.E.D. (2)

the.o.ster.66 (934538) | about 9 months ago | (#46774177)

Make and WIRED are my two current print subscriptions. (W.I.R.E.D. is fantastically infuriating to type)

Re:Make and W.I.R.E.D. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774491)

Make and WIRED are my two current print subscriptions. (W.I.R.E.D. is fantastically infuriating to read)


Short news is dead, long analysis lives. (1)

Ghostworks (991012) | about 9 months ago | (#46774183)

"Long read" periodicals, which rely on research or expertise are still worth reading. The Economist and Foreign Policy are tow that stick out in my mind.

Local news may or may not be good. When national coverage dominates, you're basically getting a watered down version of last week's CNN. When local coverage dominates, at least you know there was was probably no other source for that information.

Industry Journals probably cover esoteric topic no one else will, so those count if your are actually interested in the esoteric topics.

Sadly, the niche, hobby magazine is pretty much dead. Big players release news and content directly to the web, and the best commentary is spread around blogs and web-zines. In fact, if the bulk of a magazine can be described as "news about X", or a "a community newsletter for Y", then it's dead.

Better question (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 9 months ago | (#46774189)

What good media exists at all.

I say none.

National Geographic (1)

richtopia (924742) | about 9 months ago | (#46774195)

Easy enough to leaf through, colorful enough to justify printing. I keep one in the map pocket of my car for waiting at airports.

Circuit Cellar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774201)


Good print media.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774217)

Well they are available either print or digital but the Circuit Cellar / Elektor mags are good.

Science Magazine (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774225)

I would classify New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com) as an excellent subscription magazine. The quality of the printed pictures and graphs is a great addition to nice science articles.

NYTimes is left I believe. (4, Funny)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 9 months ago | (#46774227)

At least according to Rush.

here's one I really like (2)

sribe (304414) | about 9 months ago | (#46774251)

Saveur [saveur.com]

Infowars Magazine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774253)


Unbelievable well-done mag.

Yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774269)

"What good print media is left?"


Print is a medium, so yes, it is still there. A newspaper, or magazine, it's a publication, not a medium.

You mean "What good print publications are left?"

Lucky Peach and Archaeology (1)

unfortunateson (527551) | about 9 months ago | (#46774271)

Two magazines I still read in print are Lucky Peach and Archaeology.
Lucky Peach is a bit of insanity: Food travel, recipes, and steam of consciousness weirdness. Not cheap, and so far as I can tell, not all of it is available online.
Archaeology is great because you get to see real science actually in use -- unlike the pap most newspapers post, where the big words are all left out. It does have digital subscriptions, but because most of its articles are short, I'm happy to take this into the (ahem) powder room, where I really don't want to bring a screen.

A different perspective (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774277)

As I get older, font sizes seem to get smaller (I'm already planning to get a new pair of glasses with a higher magnification on the progressive part). So I am very happy to use my tablet to read books and magazines because I can change the font size to something suitable for my inner Magoo.

Case in point: this year's spring issue of 2600 will be the last hard copy version I buy - I can hardly read the tiny type. Hereafter, I'll be buying the electronic version.

Print media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774285)

You mean, like, the "Print" command in my programs?

Here're just a few (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774293)

Foreign Affairs, Harper's, NY Review of Books, Lapham's Quarterly, Washington Monthly, Democracy Journal, The Baffler, and many, many more!

The Library Still Has Books (2)

warren.oates (925589) | about 9 months ago | (#46774303)

I still take home books from our local small-town library (it's an original Carnegie Library) and read them in the bathtub and on the toilet and in bed and with The Simpsons on mute in our living room.

High Times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774339)

High Times [hightimes.com] is still available in print, bro. What more do you need?

our local Sunday newspaper has coupons (3, Insightful)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 9 months ago | (#46774355)

it pays for itself with the first delivery. saved $8 this week. but i blew it all of it on a flash drive.

The Jamaica Gleaner print edition (2)

colenski (552404) | about 9 months ago | (#46774377)

The Jamaica Gleaner [jamaica-gleaner.com] has excellent writing, actually employs professional reporters and fact checkers, and keeps an NPOV. The problem is, it only covers Jamaica.

National Geographic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774383)

Definitely National Geographic....Though I think the iOS digital edition is superior to the actual magazine. Higher res photos, updated content, and more engaging interactivity in the articles.

New Yorker (2)

timeOday (582209) | about 9 months ago | (#46774413)

There's a digital edition too, but I presume that doesn't exclude the print edition, or your list will be empty.

IT Is Not Quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774459)

I swore off of magazines simply due to prices. In 1985 I spent about $35. per week on magazines to satisfy my interests. Today I can go an entire year without buying a magazine. And as for books Project Gutenberg pretty much handles 100% of my book needs as well. Frankly i find that the use of English has declined in quality to the point that I rarely want to read books published after 1930 and the savings are substantial as well. I am aware that I could drive to a library but there again is the expense of driving compared to the ease of downloading literature on a PC.

worth reading (1)

NikeHerc (694644) | about 9 months ago | (#46774475)

QST, Nuts & Volts, Air & Space, maybe Circuit Cellar, although CC seems to be changing and not necessarily for the better.

Arizona Highways has, very sadly, fallen from a great height. I couldn't recommend it to new readers.

National Geographic (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 9 months ago | (#46774487)

Excellent, sometimes stunning, photography. Thought-provoking, impartial and balanced writing that prompts you to ask questions instead of telling you what to think.

Here are a few (2)

Sir Holo (531007) | about 9 months ago | (#46774495)

The Economist
Harper's Magazine
The Atlantic
Lapham's Quarterly
Foreign Affairs

Funny Times (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 9 months ago | (#46774585)

http://www.funnytimes.com/ [funnytimes.com]

They're sometimes too far radically left leaning but still lots of good stuff. At least they're funny (most of the) times. :)

Here is my current list: (2)

boogahboogah (310475) | about 9 months ago | (#46774597)

Here is my current list:

The New Yorker
American Rifleman
Shotgun News
Practical Sailor
Cruising World
Good Old Boat

Shortest of these subscriptions ? 7 years
Longest ? 25 years (Analog)
Do they have websites ? Sure, but the print media is what I seriously read.

Re:Here is my current list: (1)

boogahboogah (310475) | about 9 months ago | (#46774631)

I forgot the two newspapers:

Wall Street Journal
Philadelphia Inquirer

Subscription worth having (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774603)

American Rifleman

The New Yorker? (2)

bshell (848277) | about 9 months ago | (#46774611)

The New Yorker website is quite good, but many of their articles can only be found in the real print magazine. They don't appear online. Plus, there's something *better* about the print version of the New Yorker with its classic very readable three column layout, its well designed typeface, inimitable New Yorker cartoons sprinkled about each issue, and even the tiny little illustrations that dot the articles and follow some clever theme in each issue. I know there's an iPad/Tablet version of the New Yorker (which I have never read) but the print magazine is still pretty nice. And I have not even mentioned the expensive ads.

Re:The New Yorker? (2)

mako1138 (837520) | about 9 months ago | (#46774803)

Yeah, I would find it hard to give up the print edition. A physical subscription includes access to the digital archive, which is nice.

Aviation Week & Space Technology (1)

guzzirider (551141) | about 9 months ago | (#46774613)

It is a good read, calling it a bit hawkish might be lenient.

Fortean Times (1)

bshell (848277) | about 9 months ago | (#46774639)

Check out the Fortean Times [forteantimes.com] . "The world of strange phenomena"

2600 hacker's quarterly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774677)

Is 2600 Hacker's Quarterly still printing? Is it still worth getting?

The Economist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774717)

The Economist

Easy (1)

motorhead (82353) | about 9 months ago | (#46774721)

Soldier of Fortune
See what's happening in the world.

Harper's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774725)

Harper's is well worth the subscription cost. Interesting articles, both short and long.

Sciencenews and the Economist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774737)

Science News, and the Economist are the two subscriptions I always renew. https://www.sciencenews.org/ https://www.economist.com/

Download the pdf of any magazine instantly (1)

bshell (848277) | about 9 months ago | (#46774757)

One thing I've noticed is that any print magazine you may want can be downloaded from your favourite torrent site in just a few seconds. e.g. here are the latest issues of some popular ones... http://kickass.to/national-geo... [kickass.to] http://kickass.to/the-economis... [kickass.to] http://kickass.to/scientific-a... [kickass.to] and of course http://kickass.to/penthouse-us... [kickass.to] These are pdf files of only a few tens of megabytes and with hundreds sharing new issues hot off the press, they appear almost instantly on your computer. With this going on, who would buy a paper magazine? NB: these are page for page exact copies of the real print magazine so all the ads are intact. I even wonder if magazine companies are uploading their own publications to sell more ad space based on how many torrented mags are shared. If I was in the magazine business I would do this for sure.

Vanity Fair (1)

dave562 (969951) | about 9 months ago | (#46774765)

They have good, in depth coverage of current topics. For example, they were one of the first mainstream publications to give accurate, factual coverage of the financial crisis while it was unfolding. Their contributors write well and their editors are top notch. There are usually one to two articles worth reading every month, each about five pages.

The Age (1)

Lips (26363) | about 9 months ago | (#46774805)

In Australia, "The Age", is an excellent centrist newspaper. My subscription is worth it!

Linux Voice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46774813)

A Great Mag on Linux

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?