For my money, there's still nothing better than a good newspaper. We get the <i>Washington Post</i> here. On TV, the broadcaster controls the order and scope of reporting (you're fed the news). On the internet, vital information can easily become unreachable due to developer mistakes or usability problems.<p>With a newspaper, everything is in front of you and is in the same place. It's been in that place for years and will remain there in the near future. If there were an accepted (and acceptable) format for online news, this would be a non-issue, but until then, I'll continue to get my news from the newspaper. It's durable and only requires reading light.<p>It's also nice to avoid using a screen for everything.
"In the eighteenth century, the death of a newspaper signalled the death of liberty. What it signals now is harder to know, especially because there’s death, and then there’s death. If, one day, ink-and-print is dead and gone, newspapers will endure, wraiths of ether."<p>There is some good historical perspective on the role of newspapers in this article. Like many New Yorker articles, it is a good read.
"Early American newspapers tend to look like one long and uninterrupted invective, a ragged fleet of dung barges."<p>Makes me think of the blogosphere today. I wonder if in 100 years there will still be internet news, but it will have grown boring. Comment sections will be full of somewhat-intelligent-but-mainstream discourse, and antiestablishment types are flocking to the superinternet.