previous entry :: next entry

no news is good news

Well, we finally built up enough indignation over its coverage to cancel the Boston Globe: Leah got so angry as I read her a story about the Maine primary that she called right up and told them she didn't want to see another issue of their stinking rag. She said the gentleman she spoke to on the phone was quite nice! The result, naturally, was no paper this morning. So far we are surviving.

While the immediate cause of our annoyance (or fury, in 50% of cases) was the perceived pro-Clinton slant of reporting, it was only the last in a long string of strikes against the paper. There was also the price—$30 a month isn't small potatoes to poor folk like us—and the general lack of applicability to our lives of anything the paper had to offer. Really, their audience is well-off, urban-focused older people, which are three things that we very much are not. Well, I suppose we're older than some, but you know what I mean. We're young at heart, gosh-darnit, and we're not interested in reading about expensive wines or Italian vacations or retirement homes or incontinence treatments or whatever is all the rage these days with the boomer set. Also, there's the environmental impact.

So yes, we are now free of the morning paper and we'll have to talk to each other at breakfast. Or read school work and The Economist respectively, like we did this morning.


newspapers are doomed anyway, so you might as well get a head start

comments closed for this entry

previous entry :: next entry