Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Like @MikeM and others i prefer holding reading material in my hand and turning pages. Scrolling screens back and forth leave me feeling dizzy and disrupts the train of thought. Although I've downloaded a few books to my pad and phone I've never looked at them but figured I might need something to do someday when stuck in an airport or similar. Slide shows from the financial press are just the worst.
" What I am talking about is our intelligence agencies found it prudent to leak info on what Trump / aides are doing."
Is that really the proper course to take? Leaking to the NYT and Wapo? If they felt it was so important to tell someone then they should go through the proper channels. The bigger issue is that names were attached when usually they are redacted.
In the coming days and weeks I hope the houses get cleaned out. Too many loyalists to the previous administration are purposely pulling these stunts. That is the kind of stuff banana republics thrive on.
I don't know. However, that does not change the facts they did what they did. Dismissing what they did as partisanship I think is incorrect. I'm sure intelligence service is an equal opportunity offender. At least I would hope so. God forbid if they had people that were stacked one way or another.
@DanHardy. What I am talking about is our intelligence agencies found it prudent to leak info on what Trump / aides are doing. Dismissing it as partisan IMHO is missing the point. If Obama used the FBI, then Comey messed up Hillary. Our intelligences agencies are there to save our country. Policy is dictated by the person in power. And our intelligence is leaking dirt on *this* president. That's my point.
Please do let me know if there is any precedent for this.
I respectfully answered your question to me. You have not returned my respect by answering my question.
dude it was long weekend, I was enjoying with my family. what question I didn't answer? I didn't think we were having a question answer session.
" What I am talking about is our intelligence agencies found it prudent to leak info on what Trump / aides are doing."
When the vice-president first learns, from the public press, that he was directly lied to by a Trump aide regarding communications with an adversarial nation, and that our intelligence agencies had so advised the president some two weeks earlier, something is very, very, very wrong inside this executive asylum. Having a personal interest in the successful future of the United States, I'm thankful that the intelligence community "found it prudent" to release this information. It's just possible that vice-president Pence may share my opinion.
The first loyalty of government employees is to the citizens of the United States, not to executives or "aides" whose loyalty to the United States may be compromised. There have been suggestions made, based upon intelligence reports, that some of these "aides" may have questionable judgement with respect to communicating with Russia, which state is certainly not sharing our best interests.
This administration, including those very same aides, is now complaining that the intelligence agencies are not sharing their full information, including what we know and how we know it. What a great idea: let's turn over all of our secret intelligence sources and capability to the very people under scrutiny. Alice in wonderland, for sure.
Additional: The administration has just announced the appointment of Lt Gen H R McMaster to replace the discredited Michael Flynn. From what background info I've seen so far, General McMaster seems to be well qualified, and may have the intellect and stamina necessary to stand up to the current crop of amateurs inmates at the White House.
Lots of media for main stream media. Not only hard copy and online (web/mobile versions), but you can split the difference with hardcopy images (e.g. PressReader). Subscriptions aren't limited to a single medium. If they were, how could I "subscribe" to NPR?
In my building, over 1/4 of the apartments subscribe (in paper form) to the NYTimes, with lesser numbers subscribing to WSJ, Barron's, local papers. Who knows how many electronic subscriptions there are? And yet you'd be hard pressed to find many people over age 40 (with most significantly younger - many with kids 0-4 years old).
I don't say that this is the norm. What I do say is that this demonstrates why anecdotal "evidence" is meaningless. It no more matters how many people in your building subscribe than it does in mine.
Along with hank and OJ, I agree that CSM is a good source, and one I browse on occasion, as well as various think tanks. It's helpful to get a broad perspective.
"It's helpful to get a broad perspective." Yes, it is. And browsing through the reader commentary on various WSJ articles will certainly give you that! Outright scary.
We are in a golden age of longform investigative journalism, so much of it free or close. I read, not all every day but much too much, WSJ, Marketwatch, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, politico, vox, some aggregators like aol just for kicks, thehill, talkingpointsmemo, atlantic, nation, national republic, slate, salon, dailybeast, dailykos, buzzfeed, latimes, newyorker, nybooks, washmonthly, sometimes washtimes, VF, rollingstone, esquire. bostonglobe. wonkette. I am sure I have left some out. Guardian, economist, FT, when I can get access. Plus a bunch of niche financial and other narrow-interest material.
I do try and avoid some papers' comments, when the readers are so uninformed and so friggin' mean at the same time.
“When you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press,” he said. “And I’m not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I’m just saying we need to learn the lessons of history.” (Me thinks he doth protest too much).
I gave up on paper subscription awhile back when we adopted iPads in our household. We still subscribe electronically to New York Times, Washington Post, and WSJ.
Right. Now that the new prez has made me so much money in the market, I am going to do the same, and start paying for what I mostly hitherto mooched.
OT, I bet a nickel that DT is going eventually to really regret being so kneejerk / rabble-rousing belligerent about the press. The zeal for investigation, already high, was just tripled by the dope. It's all like uninteresting, but highly consequential, bad theater. I mean, some of us have grandkids, I bet.
< I live in a condo development and the paper carriers (I guess they still exist) leave the Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal in our lobby every morning. The snow birds who go to Florida every winter subscribe to the newspapers, and they are in their 70s, no doubt. I can't remember the last time I saw someone under 50 reading the newspaper.
@Wilmatt72 - "Newspaper" today commonly refers to both the print and electronic versions. Hence, while I and some others here subscribe to various newspapers online it would be hard for you to detect what someone's reading on their iPad, Kindle, etc. - unless you asked them or were leaning over their shoulder looking at the content (not cool).
Here we get the CSM (full paper) and NYT (abbreviated format) delivered electronically daily. Also receive daily electronic summaries from Reuters' Business. For all 3 we pay a monthly subscription fee. Also receive 30-45 minute audio summaries from the WSJ daily (also for a fee). We have a local (print) newspaper delivered to our home daily and receive Barron's through the mail. (The latter appears to be a hybrid with characteristics of both newspaper and magazine.) While I enjoy reading Barron's print - I could also access it online if I wished.
From above: Electronically Delivered Daily Newspapers (including 1 audio edition): 4 Print Newspapers (counting Barron's): 2 Total Paid Subscriptions: 6
Perhaps being in my 70s makes my disposition towards established news gatherers irrelevant. Would love to hear what others read. Obviously there's a lot of information getting thrown around on the board. Curious where folks are getting it.
I've had conversations with several of the people who still buy newspapers in print. They made it clear that they do not enjoy reading the news on a computer or tablet LOL. They said they watch the news on TV or read the paper. Old school, I guess.
Re: "I've had conversations with several of the people who still buy newspapers in print. They made it clear that they do not enjoy reading the news on a computer or tablet LOL. They said they watch the news on TV or read the paper. Old school, I guess." ---
That may well be. My point was that you can't judge the popularity or prevalence of "newspapers" in today's society by visually observing others around you - be it in a hotel lobby, apartment mail-room, airport, or any other location because an awful lot of "newspapers" are now consumed on devices. As I think @msf noted, anecdotal observations like the type you initially proffered aren't very reliable in this case.
Yes - if you want to limit "newspaper" to mean only paper copy, than I'd agree with you it's a disappearing breed. (And publishers themselves would prefer we purchase/consume their product electronically because it results in vast cost savings for them not to have to print and ship all that newsprint.)
Probably one major reason that only us older folks still subscribe to print is because only those who are retired have the time to enjoy the luxury of reading the morning papers while having breakfast.
Re: "I've had conversations with several of the people who still buy newspapers in print. They made it clear that they do not enjoy reading the news on a computer or tablet LOL. They said they watch the news on TV or read the paper. Old school, I guess." ---
That may well be. My point was that you can't judge the popularity or prevalence of "newspapers" in today's society by visually observing others around you - be it in a hotel lobby, apartment mail-room, airport, or any other location because an awful lot of "newspapers" are now consumed on devices. As I think @msf noted, anecdotal observations like the type you initially proffered aren't very reliable in this case.
Yes - if you want to limit "newspaper" to mean only paper copy, than I'd agree with you it's a disappearing breed. (And publishers themselves would prefer we purchase/consume their product electronically because it results in vast cost savings for them not to have to print and ship all that newsprint.)
In my mind, newspaper means hard copy, not online news, hence the word, "paper." As a former reporter for a few local newspapers in the Boston area, I can attest to the fact that my observations are not "meaningless" like someone else would like to think. Simply compare the size and breadth of the Boston Globe, New York Times or many local newspapers to 20 years ago and witness a marked drop in advertising, staff, news coverage, etc. Also, many people rely on 24-hour television to obtain news, making the information in a daily newspaper sometimes old and "yesterday's news." I lost count of the times that I checked out the front page of a newspaper only to think to myself, "I heard about this yesterday."
Also, as someone who rides the MBTA in the Boston area on occasion, I would be hard pressed to think about the number of times I've lurked about and saw someone reading the NY Times or any news source on a Kindle, Nook or Ipad. Not many, that's for sure. Twenty years ago, OTOH, you could read along with many passengers who were thumbing through the Herald or Globe while heading to work or school. Not anecdotal evidence but fact. I would think it's safe to say that it will be difficult to find a daily newspaper (print or hard copy) in 20 years. Unfortunately, many news organizations have not been able to come up with a successful business model to replace print advertising with online advertising. The online presence has not been able to replace the revenue lost from print. In addition, many news junkies simply go to Google News or Yahoo News rather than subscribe to the Washington Post or Boston Globe. The online giants have hurt the need for digital subscriptions, without a doubt.
Personally, I watch Fox Business, CNBC, Fox News, local news (Boston area), and view online Boston Herald, NY Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, and several news blogs. I'm all over the place when it comes to online news. I can read anything from Barron's to the Las Vegas Review-Journal to The Christian Science Monitor.
@Wilmatt72: Here's what I said: "Yes - if you want to limit "newspaper" to mean only paper copy, than I'd agree with you it's a disappearing breed. (And publishers themselves would prefer we purchase/consume their product electronically because it results in vast cost savings for them not to have to print and ship all that newsprint.)"
So I've already agreed with you based on your (somewhat narrow) definition. -
Here's another take on the matter: Wikipedia says "A digital newspaper is a digital version of a printed newspaper. Newspapers can be digitally published online or as a digital copy on a digital device, such as a mobile phone or an E Ink reader.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_newspaper
From personal experience, I've owned Kindles for over 10 years and have always subscribed to "newspapers" with them. These run anywhere from $6 to $30 per month. They arrive automatically every morning. They do not contain classified ads, but the content in most other ways resembles the paper edition. Being much more portable than print papers you can read them on a plane without poking your seat neighbor in the side of the head or on a beach somewhere without having the wind blow them away from you.
I read the NYT's and Washington Post by subscription online via my trusted iPad, one of my best purchases of the last 5 years, and then the Wall Street Journal, hard copy. As an FYI...as a person with vision challenges, an iPad is the best and most efficient method for reading either for newspapers or books. I use it every day...
The fear I have is towards those who gather news merely via cable TV. This leads to a very superficial view of the world.
@Wilmatt72: Here's what I said: "Yes - if you want to limit "newspaper" to mean only paper copy, than I'd agree with you it's a disappearing breed. (And publishers themselves would prefer we purchase/consume their product electronically because it results in vast cost savings for them not to have to print and ship all that newsprint.)"
From personal experience, I've owned Kindles for over 10 years and have always subscribed to "newspapers" with them. These run anywhere from $6 to $30 per month. They arrive automatically every morning. They do not contain classified ads, but the content in most other ways resembles the paper edition. Being much more portable than print papers you can read them on a plane without poking your seat neighbor in the side of the head or on a beach somewhere without having the wind blow them away from you.
There are several different size Kindles, Nooks and IPads, as I'm sure you know. Personally, I have the Nook Samsung Galaxy 9.6, which is approx. 9.5" X 5.89." A very good size screen. Some IPads are even bigger. The point being that it is quite easy to see what someone is reading on a train or nearby, especially when it is busy and people are close together. I rarely see someone reading a print newspaper on the train anymore. As a former reporter, there's something to be said about picking up the newspaper on the stand, smelling the fresh ink, thumbing through it and feeling like you are ready to tackle the day I enjoy reading digital news but it looks too perfect sometimes IMHO, there's something quite homogenized about receiving the news online or as a download rather than getting the paper at your doorstep or news stand.
I did read the print WSJ on planes back when it was still a great newspaper. And remember whacking a few passengers on the side of the head while turning pages.
I remember when airport "security check" merely meant turning your transistor radio on momentarily for the agent to show him/her that it was really a radio you were carrying.
And I remember puffing away on a lit pipe or cigar during flights - as there were no restrictions against smoking on airliners back than.
Guess that dates me.
PS: All things being equal, I'll take print over digital. But all things are rarely equal.
First off, my -'pet rock' concept product is called 'hair extinguisher' for everyone you know with their hair on fire.
As for politics, we've muddled through worse and will muddle through this.
One of the great things about the internet and light speed communications is that you can't hide the truth from being available - you can only try to get people believing something else.
Hell, folks, I've been telling you for literally YEARS that what matters is what people believe. If they all believe a lie to be true AND ACT ACCORDINGLY - it might as well BE true.
@Maurice, There are few Communists in the U.S., but if you or your family receive Medicare, Social Security, walk in public parks, drive on public roads, attended public schools or support our troops, then you're a socialist or at least benefiting from government run and financed socialist institutions. Socialism is a spectrum that exists in every nation on earth--as does capitalism. Even during the cold war, there was a thriving capitalist black market for goods in Russia.
@Maurice, There is something inherently socialistic and redistributive about any public good. No one gets out of the system exactly what they paid in via taxes. It's just few people realize how much the government benefits them. For instance, the public roads disproportionately benefit corporations versus the individual as corporations use public roads for receiving their raw materials and supplies and delivering their goods to customers. I doubt the road tax is proportionate for each individual entity for the use of that public system. Inevitably, some will benefit more than others.
Regarding Medicare, I doubt many senior citizens today realize that they in aggregate receive far more in medical benefits than they paid in Medicare taxes during their lifetime because the medical inflation rate is so high. That means younger people like myself are paying Medicare taxes so that Medicare can make up the difference between what seniors put into the system during their working years and the far costlier medical benefits they are now receiving. I don't mind paying this because I feel living in a society means actually caring for its weakest members, namely sick people. What angers me is many of those same seniors now receiving these benefits I am paying for are saying the Affordable Care Act shouldn't exist to help cover people younger than 65. The attitude is socialism for me, but not for you. This claim that "I paid for my Medicare" exclusively is ridiculous. We all pay for it--and some will get out of it more than others--redistributive socialism.
Perhaps most galling is when people in the investment and financial world rail against social programs that "waste tax payer dollars." What about the taxpayer-funded bailout of the entire financial system that occurred in 2008 and 2009? That was socialistic/redistributive too, but since it was banks receiving the public's largess, that somehow makes it OK. Socialism for me, but not for you.
@Maurice, Cambridge is so expensive now, generally, and Harvard Square so changed, that Red Liners listen to their worker periodicals over their iPhones on their way through.
For instance, the public roads disproportionately benefit corporations versus the individual as corporations use public roads for receiving their raw materials and supplies and delivering their goods to customers.
Corporations benefit from the roads more then individuals. Customers who buy said corp. product do not benefit. mmmmm
Comments
" What I am talking about is our intelligence agencies found it prudent to leak info on what Trump / aides are doing."
When the vice-president first learns, from the public press, that he was directly lied to by a Trump aide regarding communications with an adversarial nation, and that our intelligence agencies had so advised the president some two weeks earlier, something is very, very, very wrong inside this executive asylum. Having a personal interest in the successful future of the United States, I'm thankful that the intelligence community "found it prudent" to release this information. It's just possible that vice-president Pence may share my opinion.
The first loyalty of government employees is to the citizens of the United States, not to executives or "aides" whose loyalty to the United States may be compromised. There have been suggestions made, based upon intelligence reports, that some of these "aides" may have questionable judgement with respect to communicating with Russia, which state is certainly not sharing our best interests.
This administration, including those very same aides, is now complaining that the intelligence agencies are not sharing their full information, including what we know and how we know it. What a great idea: let's turn over all of our secret intelligence sources and capability to the very people under scrutiny. Alice in wonderland, for sure.
Additional: The administration has just announced the appointment of Lt Gen H R McMaster to replace the discredited Michael Flynn. From what background info I've seen so far, General McMaster seems to be well qualified, and may have the intellect and stamina necessary to stand up to the current crop of
amateursinmates at the White House.In my building, over 1/4 of the apartments subscribe (in paper form) to the NYTimes, with lesser numbers subscribing to WSJ, Barron's, local papers. Who knows how many electronic subscriptions there are? And yet you'd be hard pressed to find many people over age 40 (with most significantly younger - many with kids 0-4 years old).
I don't say that this is the norm. What I do say is that this demonstrates why anecdotal "evidence" is meaningless. It no more matters how many people in your building subscribe than it does in mine.
Along with hank and OJ, I agree that CSM is a good source, and one I browse on occasion, as well as various think tanks. It's helpful to get a broad perspective.
I do try and avoid some papers' comments, when the readers are so uninformed and so friggin' mean at the same time.
“When you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press,” he said. “And I’m not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I’m just saying we need to learn the lessons of history.”
(Me thinks he doth protest too much).
Full Article from The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/19/john-mccain-on-trump-suppressing-free-press-is-how-dictators-get-started
OT, I bet a nickel that DT is going eventually to really regret being so kneejerk / rabble-rousing belligerent about the press. The zeal for investigation, already high, was just tripled by the dope. It's all like uninteresting, but highly consequential, bad theater. I mean, some of us have grandkids, I bet.
Re: "I've had conversations with several of the people who still buy newspapers in print. They made it clear that they do not enjoy reading the news on a computer or tablet LOL. They said they watch the news on TV or read the paper. Old school, I guess."
---
That may well be. My point was that you can't judge the popularity or prevalence of "newspapers" in today's society by visually observing others around you - be it in a hotel lobby, apartment mail-room, airport, or any other location because an awful lot of "newspapers" are now consumed on devices. As I think @msf noted, anecdotal observations like the type you initially proffered aren't very reliable in this case.
Yes - if you want to limit "newspaper" to mean only paper copy, than I'd agree with you it's a disappearing breed. (And publishers themselves would prefer we purchase/consume their product electronically because it results in vast cost savings for them not to have to print and ship all that newsprint.)
Also, as someone who rides the MBTA in the Boston area on occasion, I would be hard pressed to think about the number of times I've lurked about and saw someone reading the NY Times or any news source on a Kindle, Nook or Ipad. Not many, that's for sure. Twenty years ago, OTOH, you could read along with many passengers who were thumbing through the Herald or Globe while heading to work or school. Not anecdotal evidence but fact. I would think it's safe to say that it will be difficult to find a daily newspaper (print or hard copy) in 20 years. Unfortunately, many news organizations have not been able to come up with a successful business model to replace print advertising with online advertising. The online presence has not been able to replace the revenue lost from print. In addition, many news junkies simply go to Google News or Yahoo News rather than subscribe to the Washington Post or Boston Globe. The online giants have hurt the need for digital subscriptions, without a doubt.
Personally, I watch Fox Business, CNBC, Fox News, local news (Boston area), and view online Boston Herald, NY Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, and several news blogs. I'm all over the place when it comes to online news. I can read anything from Barron's to the Las Vegas Review-Journal to The Christian Science Monitor.
So I've already agreed with you based on your (somewhat narrow) definition.
-
Here's another take on the matter: Wikipedia says "A digital newspaper is a digital version of a printed newspaper. Newspapers can be digitally published online or as a digital copy on a digital device, such as a mobile phone or an E Ink reader. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_newspaper
Definitions can also be established by way of example. To this point, Amazon lists dozens of "Kindle Newspapers" on its website with The New York Times, Wall Street Journal , Washington Post topping the list. (Clearly Bezos hasn't gotten the word.) https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_17?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=kindle+newspapers&sprefix=kindle+newspapers,aps,345&crid=1QCWLGONRTD35&rh=i:aps,k:kindle+newspapers
As far as observing what people are reading on their Kindles, I've no idea. Kindle screen size is 6.7 X 4.6 inches. You've got great eyesight. https://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Paperwhite-Ereader/dp/B00AWH595M
From personal experience, I've owned Kindles for over 10 years and have always subscribed to "newspapers" with them. These run anywhere from $6 to $30 per month. They arrive automatically every morning. They do not contain classified ads, but the content in most other ways resembles the paper edition. Being much more portable than print papers you can read them on a plane without poking your seat neighbor in the side of the head or on a beach somewhere without having the wind blow them away from you.
The fear I have is towards those who gather news merely via cable TV. This leads to a very superficial view of the world.
I did read the print WSJ on planes back when it was still a great newspaper. And remember whacking a few passengers on the side of the head while turning pages.
I remember when airport "security check" merely meant turning your transistor radio on momentarily for the agent to show him/her that it was really a radio you were carrying.
And I remember puffing away on a lit pipe or cigar during flights - as there were no restrictions against smoking on airliners back than.
Guess that dates me.
PS: All things being equal, I'll take print over digital. But all things are rarely equal.
First off, my -'pet rock' concept product is called 'hair extinguisher' for everyone you know with their hair on fire.
As for politics, we've muddled through worse and will muddle through this.
One of the great things about the internet and light speed communications is that you can't hide the truth from being available - you can only try to get people believing something else.
Hell, folks, I've been telling you for literally YEARS that what matters is what people believe. If they all believe a lie to be true AND ACT ACCORDINGLY - it might as well BE true.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
@rono- Exactly what I said to my wife last night.
You better do an ipo for that extinguisher product; it is gonna be yuge.
Yeah, '68-'74 was worse than this, with the assassinations and authority murders of protesters.
Astronomers now believe there may actually be intelligent life somewhere in the universe.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/02/22/nasa-announcement-live/
Regarding Medicare, I doubt many senior citizens today realize that they in aggregate receive far more in medical benefits than they paid in Medicare taxes during their lifetime because the medical inflation rate is so high. That means younger people like myself are paying Medicare taxes so that Medicare can make up the difference between what seniors put into the system during their working years and the far costlier medical benefits they are now receiving. I don't mind paying this because I feel living in a society means actually caring for its weakest members, namely sick people. What angers me is many of those same seniors now receiving these benefits I am paying for are saying the Affordable Care Act shouldn't exist to help cover people younger than 65. The attitude is socialism for me, but not for you. This claim that "I paid for my Medicare" exclusively is ridiculous. We all pay for it--and some will get out of it more than others--redistributive socialism.
Perhaps most galling is when people in the investment and financial world rail against social programs that "waste tax payer dollars." What about the taxpayer-funded bailout of the entire financial system that occurred in 2008 and 2009? That was socialistic/redistributive too, but since it was banks receiving the public's largess, that somehow makes it OK. Socialism for me, but not for you.
Cambridge is so expensive now, generally, and Harvard Square so changed, that Red Liners listen to their worker periodicals over their iPhones on their way through.
Customers who buy said corp. product do not benefit.
mmmmm