I would have to say that the Guardian was a lot better 15 years ago when it
was really a great resource, although it is still pretty good.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:15 AM Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
*I do seem to be collecting hypothetical “sources that one ought to
read.” I’ve been a subscriber to the New York Review of Books from its
inception. I can’t remember when I began subscribing to the Times Literary
Supplement and the London Review of Books, but those three are sources I
will continue to accept . . . with reservations. I recently subscribed to
The Spectator, which seems to have a long standing right to be called a
source one ought to read. I have yet to receive my first copy however, so
I’m reserving judgment. *
*When the prospect of wobbling out on dark mornings to retrieve the
morning the local paper became an adventure not worthy of the results, I
discontinued it and subscribed to the on-line edition of the Los Angeles
Times. Also, a few years back I tried out the New York Times on Kindle.
It was a trial subscription and I decided not to continue it. However, I
could not make it disappear. It has appeared as an available choice on my
Kindle ever since. I don’t believe I am paying for it, but I’m not sure .
. . in any case, because of the covid-19 situation in New York I decided to
see if I could start reading it again, and I could – I don’t understand
their system, but I don’t suppose I care very much. *
*I have several on-line (but not on my Kindl) publications that I don’t
pay for and I can’t make go away. The best I can do is to tell my email
utility to classify them as junk mail and send them directly to trash. *
*I enjoy keeping hard copies of the TLS, NYROB and LRB because so many of
the articles are not time sensitive. I have stacks of them in the garage
mostly but when I become bored with which-ever book I’m reading and look
for a change, I’ll bring in a stack of the above and go through them. I’m
hoping that the Spectator will have articles that are of the same quality.
The LA & NY Times provide news that is time sensitive so I don’t mind
reading them on my Kindle. I assume the Guardian will be mostly
time-sensitive as well. *
*Lawrence*
*From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *david ritchie
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 07, 2020 10:41 PM
*To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: What's with the Guardian?
On Apr 7, 2020, at 10:10 PM, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
*Okay, I signed up – with reservations. **J*
*Lawrence*
I spring to the defence of the Guardian, not because I think they have
some claim to Truth but because they are among the sources that one ought
to read. I get my news from it and the Telegraph and Le Monde and die Zeit
and PBS and the New York Times, and to see what the world thinks I travel
around virtually (I hadn’t seen before this moment that virtually has
virtue in it) and read what a South African newspaper or an Australian
newspaper or a South American paper says. Am I annoyed by the fact that
they ask me for money? No. They are unsure how to stay in business now
that department stores and other sources of advertizing revenue are gone.
Will I send money to them all? No. Do I believe we shoud help pay for
reporting? I do. Governments are unlikely to support their critics. And
without these people doing their bit, what will we know? The rumor from
the next valley, metaphorically speaking. What some small essay-writing
journal says?
We need as broad a picture as our minds can deal with. And that’s what
makes web-access so wonderful. So send your dollars in, wherever you
choose, but don’t be insulted by begging. It’s the norm. In these times.
David Ritchie,
Portland, Oregon
