The Daily Telegraph

[going grey]

I'm thinking of switching to the Times after 35 years of dedicated Telegraph reading. As I'm sure you'll understand this is momentous move. I've always thought the Times a bit pompous and the Telegraph seemed to have stuff in it that was what I wanted to read and was a bit looser and lighter. Having said that I shall brace myself for the hail of ( probably eco-friendly and ethically sourced) bullets from Guardian readers. Anyway...The Telegraph has sacked A N Wilson...arch young fogey and entertaining writer on books and Craig Brown -doyen of satirists and utterly hilarious bloke generally..both defined the Telegraph's style and they've got rid of them both !
On top of this , traces of "Hello " and "OK" -style journalism cow-towing to -lets say- people whose role models are the Beckhams leads me to think the rot has well and truly set in.

[fifeldor]

When The Times downgraded to tabloid size, many people (including myself) switched to The Daily Telegraph, which was excellent. It had Boris Johnson, James Delingpole et al.

However, they've had to cut down alot due to the "credit crunch" and alot of the quality has gone, so switching back to The Times seems like quite a good option I agree - even if it is a Murdoch newspaper.

However I now primarily read Le Figaro for its beautifully concise French.

[Carlton-Browne]

Not sure there are that many other places to go, particularly a Murdoch rag. I have given up on the Sunday Telegraph altogether as I seem to be able to read the bits that interest me in less time than it takes to read the Sun (I don't buy it but some thoughtful soul leaves a copy in the gents at work occasionally). On the other days of the week it seems to want to become a broadsheet version of the Mail which is hardly the future. I still look forward to the FT on Saturdays (with the added advantage of being readily available all over Europe) and now that I have a mobile broadband thingy I work on the train in the morning when in London so, like you, I have sort of given up.

The other alternative is to read what you want online (e.g. BBC on the phone) and get the in-depth stuff with an Economist subscription. I also occasionally get the Observer if I'm in the UK and if it has the monthly food supplement.

[Bertie Wooster]

Originally Posted by Carlton-Browne

Not sure there are that many other places to go, particularly a Murdoch rag. I have given up on the Sunday Telegraph altogether as I seem to be able to read the bits that interest me in less time than it takes to read the Sun (I don't buy it but some thoughtful soul leaves a copy in the gents at work occasionally). On the other days of the week it seems to want to become a broadsheet version of the Mail which is hardly the future. I still look forward to the FT on Saturdays (with the added advantage of being readily available all over Europe) and now that I have a mobile broadband thingy I work on the train in the morning when in London so, like you, I have sort of given up.

The other alternative is to read what you want online (e.g. BBC on the phone) and get the in-depth stuff with an Economist subscription. I also occasionally get the Observer if I'm in the UK and if it has the monthly food supplement.

+1 for the FT. One of the few papers I actually look forward to reading and will but faithfully every Saturday.
Might I also offer the Herald Tribune ? Not always available outside larger cities, but well worth a read IMHO. I just wish the Wall St Journal didn't insist on the watered down pamphlet they pass off in Europe.

[mambo]

I hate reading newspapers so I get NEWSWEEK that sums up in one easy read news from around the world

[The Swedish Chef]

My parents have been Daily Telegraph readers for years but had the Sunday Times delivered on the weekend. I therefore naturally started reading Telegraph but quickly found the Guardian more to my liking for news articles not necessary political bias.

When back in the UK I thoroughly enjoy reading their Sunday Times but do find the amount of interesting articles in the Daily Telegraph somewhat wanting.

I read the Guardian, Times and BBC on the web for my daily dose of UK news.

[Pr B]

The newsweekly, "The Week," has UK, US, and Australian editions. It is a digest of from a variety of news outlets, so you get all spins and perspectives. Think of it as an executive summary of "The Economist."

[Pipps]

Dear Mr Grey, I admire your move to stand up for your principles. However, I cannot recommend that you will get much better from the Times. My own personal frustration on this very point left me abolishing my consumption of newspapers altogether and selecting only the news that I want to read from my Reuters online RSS feed. Far more suited to my tastes.

[Miket61]

Originally Posted by Bertie Wooster

+1 for the FT. One of the few papers I actually look forward to reading and will but faithfully every Saturday.

Several years ago I received a plaintive letter from a major airline, addressed to a previous resident of my home. (I'm assuming it was a long-term boyfriend of the previous owner.) It insisted that several thousand airline miles were about to expire, and they could be used to subscribe to a collection of magazines and newspapers.

I started taking the Financial Times. It was supposed to be a six-month subscription but they continued to deliver it for a year and a half.

The writing is wonderful - other than the grammatical hiccups whenever a volume of currency was mentioned. I would find myself thoroughly enjoying articles about companies I've never heard of in industries I don't study. And the Friday home and travel sections were a peek into the world of people who debate buying a $20 million (£13.97 million, €15.78 million) condo with the same level of concern as selecting which pair of shoes to wear.

[turban1]

i am told by former telegraph contributors that the talented craig brown, et. al., were let go to save money and the owners want all, or as much copy as possible, written by generation xers on staff. i am told by their editorial writers that they will not consider opinion pieces unless submitted by someone whom they consider 'a celebrity.'

it's sad end to a newspaper remembered fondly by those of us who read it in the 1970s. but the times is worse. i read the economist, and don't bother with newspapers unless i read them at my club, or rarely, buy something to read while pausing somewhere for a bowl of soup. sic transit...

[Carlton-Browne]

I also understand that, as part of the same move, the owners have outsourced the editing to Australia. Somehow I would rather read a newspaper run by journalists rather than accountants.

Originally Posted by turban1

i am told by former telegraph contributors that the talented craig brown, et. al., were let go to save money and the owners want all, or as much copy as possible, written by generation xers on staff. i am told by their editorial writers that they will not consider opinion pieces unless submitted by someone whom they consider 'a celebrity.'

it's sad end to a newspaper remembered fondly by those of us who read it in the 1970s. but the times is worse. i read the economist, and don't bother with newspapers unless i read them at my club, or rarely, buy something to read while pausing somewhere for a bowl of soup. sic transit...

[DCLawyer68]

When I lived in London for a summer (1988) I read about 5-6 newspapers a day and just loved the diversity. The Telegraph was a personal favorite.

I recall a journalist lecturer explaining to our all American poli sci class the difference between the papers: (1) the Times was read by the people who run the country; (2) the Telegraph was read by those who USED to run the country; (3) Financial Times was read by those who OWNED the country and (4) the Workers World was read by those who wished another country ran the country.

[turban1]

Originally Posted by DCLawyer68

When I lived in London for a summer (1988) I read about 5-6 newspapers a day and just loved the diversity. The Telegraph was a personal favorite.

I recall a journalist lecturer explaining to our all American poli sci class the difference between the papers: (1) the Times was read by the people who run the country; (2) the Telegraph was read by those who USED to run the country; (3) Financial Times was read by those who OWNED the country and (4) the Workers World was read by those who wished another country ran the country.

...and the Sun is read by people who don't care who run the country as long as she has big....well, you know.

a generation on, can we come up with an update?

the guardian is read by the people who run the state that now runs the country. the sun is read by the people who run the people who run the state that now runs the country. the times is read by australians and people who fear missing promotion if they are seen reading the sun. the telegraph is run by people whose parents used to own the country before it was taken over by the state. the mail is read by people who used to work for the people who owned the country and who want their neighbours deported. the financial times is read by people who own whatever of the country isn't owned by the state, until they can shift their money abroad. the internet is read by people who will run the country in ten years and who wouldn't read these decrepit british newspapers at gunpoint. the economist is read by busy middle aged people who haven't time to engage in onanism with the aforementioned people or publications.

how's that?

[LondonFogey]

The Telegraph is read by people who think everything used to be better than it is now, including the Telegraph.

The Times is read by people who were sufficiently progressive not to defect to the Telegraph when it went tabloid.

The Guardian is read by people who run the country, but think they don't.

The Financial Times is ready by people trying to convince the neighbours they still have a job.

The Mail is read by people who want to read about gypsy rapist asylum seekers while looking at a picture of Kate Middleton.

The Express is read by people who wanted to buy the Mail but the newsagent had run out.

The Mirror is read by people who are still expecting their site foreman to shout 'everybody out'.

The Sun is read by people who think a full page picture of a footballer with one paragraph of text is good sports reporting.

The Star is read by people who think the Sun is a bit highbrow.

The Sport is read by fewer and fewer people, as most of them are going blind.

[Oxonian]

Originally Posted by LondonFogey

The Telegraph is read by people who think everything used to be better than it is now, including the Telegraph.

+1

I like the Torygraph in a daily myself, but I prefer the Economist to all the other papers, really.