Ask Slashdot: What Good Print Media Is Left?

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?"

Comments

The Economist

[Animats]

The Economist. Still worth reading.

Re:The Economist

[Penguinisto]

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

[Panoptes]

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and layout conventions, the style of language and changes in structure and word usage, idioms and expressions that are no longer current or fashionable; the smell of the paper, the tactile quality of the old covers and binding, the faint noise of opening a long-closed magazine.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

[TheRealSteveDallas]

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 When all your historical documents are digital...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

[petes_PoV]

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

I find that the Economist has a very high information density. Not just in its headline topic but in many other areas of journalism, too.

As for "half-truths and over simplifications", that's not my experience. Maybe you just don't understand a lot of the rather complex concepts and language that their professional and technically proficient writers use?

Make Magazine

[Rob Riggs]

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

"print" vs "digital" is pointless distinction

[globaljustin]

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