Newspaper Subscriptions and Digital Subscriptions

[Hipper]

I'm looking into this.

I notice for example that to buy The Guardian and Observer daily would cost £827 a year. To buy it by subscription using vouchers in your local shop costs £571 a year. To subscribe for the digital edition using Kindle Fire cost £144 a year.

It seems to me that when confronted with a paper newspaper I look through it all for something of interest. I can also pick it up and put it down as I please.

Reading online I think I'm less likely to read as comprehensively and will not give the time to look for articles of interest.

Has anyone converted from paper newspapers to digital version and noticed a change in their reading habits?

What are your experiences?

[wilks_bfc]

I can't remember the last time I bought a paper & would only physically read one if I was around at my parents (dad is an old creature of habit and still goes for one each morning despite having a smartphone/tablet/laptop)

Newspapers tell you what happened yesterday. In today's age of social media we are finding out today's news now.

I'm actually surprised all the newspaper groups are still going tbh.

[CnBtruntru]

Would there not be a way with the digital subscription that you could have favourite pages that you visit, or maybe read what a certain writer has written, I would expect there is some way of doing that, if not then the paperless versions are not doing themselves justice, I would have thought that the digital far outweighs the physical version due to cost alone £683 of a saving or £427 with coupons = £8.21 a week, but then again I am not working and poor.

[Blackrod]

Barely read newspapers anymore. Don't have the time. Increasingly poor journalism and unresearched articles. Old news by the time you have bought it too.

[basil6345789]

Fake news

[Paul Waine]

I've got Times subscription, physical paper delivered (near to) front door early every morning (7 days) plus digital access from around midnight, with updates during the day.

Physical, scan multiple headlines plus article size, is convenient for reading on commute into London - timely journey I read approx. 75% of what I want to (and need to) read. Transport delays, particularly stuck on underground, some days read 100%.

When I'm away from home cancel physical edition and read the digital edition on my Samsung S5 - possibly smallest "comfortable" reading size. Digital is better in some ways, but it's just scanning/scrolling the headlines - need to select article to see other details.

Yes, other media can be better for immediate news - but there's a lot of value in more considered articles, with more time to research and add interesting details. And, we all need "trusted, credible sources" for our news. (No, I don't believe everything I read in any paper or any on-line source. We all need to assess what we read and use our own judgement).

My subscription (hard copy plus digital) is cheaper than picking up my old hard copy 6/7 days a week. Digital alone would be even cheaper. I'm happy with what I've got at present - until Times stops producing hard copies.

I've worked for a time with professional media, i.e. news and other reports for a specialist industry sector. Good journalism is valuable (I'm not a journalist - not got those skills). We need to pay for it.