[fullmetal]

Interestingly, I was at a dinner of Daily alums in Pasadena after the Rose Bowl, and one of them had brought along his son, at the time a Stanford freshman. I mentioned that when I was a student, if you walked into a dining hall for breakfast, something on the order of two-thirds to three-fourths of the people would be looking at that morning's Daily. He looked skeptical and then, remembering where he was, a little pitying. "It's, um, not really like that anymore," he replied.

I would guess 15-20% when I was a student.  I read the Daily.

[fullmetal]

Interestingly, I was at a dinner of Daily alums in Pasadena after the Rose Bowl, and one of them had brought along his son, at the time a Stanford freshman. I mentioned that when I was a student, if you walked into a dining hall for breakfast, something on the order of two-thirds to three-fourths of the people would be looking at that morning's Daily. He looked skeptical and then, remembering where he was, a little pitying. "It's, um, not really like that anymore," he replied.

I would guess 15-20% when I was a student.  I read the Daily.

[BostonCard]

I read (and pay for) the Economist.  In fact, I pay for way more than I read (most weeks I can barely get through the Editor's picks and the World This Week and a skim through the rest), though I love their new app, Economist Espresso which each weekday provides a brief rundown of what is going on in the world.  The articles are of similar quality as the newspaper (what they call themselves), but substantially shorter.

I also listen (and pay for, voluntarily) NPR, mostly through podcasts.

I think you will see the world of news bifurcate into two segments.  High quality work like the two above, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and a few more outlets, perhaps some online only which will cater to a smallish group of people willing to pay for the quality, and a larger segment of cheaply made, cheap to produce, almost exclusively online content that is "free" to consumers (in terms of no subscription fee), but is a mix of social media click bait, annoying advertisements, and lowest common denominator poorly written [excrement].

The best writers and journalists will be able to make a decent living, but for the rest (and the average UC Berkeley journalism graduate), it doesn't sound like a fulfilling career.

BC

[BostonCard]

I read (and pay for) the Economist.  In fact, I pay for way more than I read (most weeks I can barely get through the Editor's picks and the World This Week and a skim through the rest), though I love their new app, Economist Espresso which each weekday provides a brief rundown of what is going on in the world.  The articles are of similar quality as the newspaper (what they call themselves), but substantially shorter.

I also listen (and pay for, voluntarily) NPR, mostly through podcasts.

I think you will see the world of news bifurcate into two segments.  High quality work like the two above, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and a few more outlets, perhaps some online only which will cater to a smallish group of people willing to pay for the quality, and a larger segment of cheaply made, cheap to produce, almost exclusively online content that is "free" to consumers (in terms of no subscription fee), but is a mix of social media click bait, annoying advertisements, and lowest common denominator poorly written [excrement].

The best writers and journalists will be able to make a decent living, but for the rest (and the average UC Berkeley journalism graduate), it doesn't sound like a fulfilling career.

BC

[CTcard]

Interestingly, I was at a dinner of Daily alums in Pasadena after the Rose Bowl, and one of them had brought along his son, at the time a Stanford freshman. I mentioned that when I was a student, if you walked into a dining hall for breakfast, something on the order of two-thirds to three-fourths of the people would be looking at that morning's Daily. He looked skeptical and then, remembering where he was, a little pitying. "It's, um, not really like that anymore," he replied.

It wasn't really like that in the mid-80s either.
The Daily was primarily for doing the crossword puzzle in the back of class and snickering over the latest Daily-troversy in the letters section.

But, um, it must have just been a lull.

[CTcard]

Interestingly, I was at a dinner of Daily alums in Pasadena after the Rose Bowl, and one of them had brought along his son, at the time a Stanford freshman. I mentioned that when I was a student, if you walked into a dining hall for breakfast, something on the order of two-thirds to three-fourths of the people would be looking at that morning's Daily. He looked skeptical and then, remembering where he was, a little pitying. "It's, um, not really like that anymore," he replied.

It wasn't really like that in the mid-80s either.
The Daily was primarily for doing the crossword puzzle in the back of class and snickering over the latest Daily-troversy in the letters section.

But, um, it must have just been a lull.