PDA

View Full Version : Which Free Daily Paper do you prefer?



shocka
July 7th, 2005, 10:38 PM
This seems to be a common conversation that comes up between friends what do the people here think?

I picked AM NY because the Metro is on the other side of the Tracks (LIRR) so i never get it til i get out of Grand Central at which point ive read the AM NY already.

pianoman11686
July 8th, 2005, 12:13 AM
AM New York, only because I will always remember walking out of the 86th Street/Lexington subway station in the morning and hearing this older African American woman shouting "AM New York! Get your free newspaper, AM New York!" with a big smile on her face. I took it every morning and did the crosswords with my friends before classes started, until the crosswords started to repeat. The paper became so popular after a few months that at 7:30 in the morning, they would often run out of the papers. Eventually, Metro set up a post on the other side of the street. They're both crap newspapers, but what do you expect.

Clarknt67
July 8th, 2005, 04:25 PM
AM New york. It looks better. I'm an Art Director, what can I say?

shocka
July 10th, 2005, 02:38 AM
I realize you said Free Newspapers, but look at this thread (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5446) if you have not already.

i got the idea from that thread.


pianoman11686, funny story I have the same thing every morning. There is a guy at the 42nd St Grand Central 7 Train Entrance who yells "Metro Get Your Metro" with that smile.

NewYorkYankee
July 10th, 2005, 10:22 AM
What do these newspapers contain? NY news? That seems good, why are they considered "crap"?

pianoman11686
July 10th, 2005, 11:00 PM
If you had ever read an article published in one of these, you would understand.http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif

shocka
July 11th, 2005, 11:14 AM
What do these newspapers contain? NY news? That seems good, why are they considered "crap"?

i wudnt consider them crap.. i like the new in them. Its to the point. None of the unnecessary details. Great reading material for the morning commute.

HarlemRep
July 11th, 2005, 11:00 PM
i wudnt consider them crap.. i like the new in them. Its to the point. None of the unnecessary details. Great reading material for the morning commute.

Yes! Because if there is anything I don't want in my news, it's details.

shocka
July 12th, 2005, 12:00 AM
Yes! Because if there is anything I don't want in my news, it's details.

in the morning paper i just want the news to the point. Personally I think most newpapers are garbage because by the time u get them the news is old.

And here is a prime example. Last week with the events that took place in London, none of the papers had anything about it. I took a 1.5 hr commute to work read the newday and no idea of what happened when i got to work and loaded up the browser is when i found out about it.

With that said when it comes to news papers i like to get alot of little details then leave it to the internet or radio to fill me in.

pianoman11686
July 12th, 2005, 12:22 AM
I happen to agree with the idea that newspapers are outdated, but there really is no way around it. Most articles appearing in the New York Times are available online at 11pm the night before. You want up to date news? Go online or turn on the tv. The morning of the London attack, right before I left home, I turned on the local news. Within thirty seconds I found out everything important about the attacks, and afterwards, when reading news articles online, 90% of the info was just repetitive. I learned nothing "new." That's something misleading about newspapers. I tend to find them more "analytical" these days, as in: "Ok, reader, you know what's going on. Here's a brief sypnopsis followed by my long and often unnecessary explanation, which will be interspersed with subjective claims made by me, the writer/editor." That's not to say, however, that it's not worthwhile reading some of these long articles.

Getting back to the free local newspapers: I will simply stick to my original statement that they are, with rare exception, crappy sources of information. I often found very many typos in the text, a poor writing style in general, and too much celebrity-related gossip/news. There were also many "little" and very obvious errors in the paper. Often, in the middle of winter, I would find the weather report to predict something to the tune of: High - 103, Low - 91. And there would almost always - and I'm not exaggerating this by any extent - be a short blurb on the front page about some ridiculous animal incident halfway around the world that just made no sense whatsoever. Despite all this, I won't deny that it was still fun to go through AMNewYork almost every morning for several years. Whether I gained anything valuable from reading it is still up in the air.

czsz
July 12th, 2005, 12:29 AM
If it's news you're after (or at least analysis and context, because, as it's been pointed out, one can hardly count on anything "new" in the morning paper), the Times is indispensible. If it's mirthful fun, the Post. AM New York and Metro? They just add to the litter problem, especially in the subway.

pianoman11686
July 12th, 2005, 12:32 AM
Here's a perfect example of what I was talking about. From Tuesday's edition of AMNewYork:

ANIMALREPORT
Parrot on patrol
A parrot has become the toast
of El Salvador after helping police
nab a gang of thieves.The
robbers put the parrot, along
with other stolen goods, into the
getaway car, police said.When
police pulled over the car in a
routine check, the bird, named
Paquita, squawked,“Robbery,
robbery,” reported Las Ultimas
Noticias.The cops became suspicious
and caught the robbers.

This is printed on the front page, of which about 80% is taken up by pictures of Yankees and Mets baseball players with their respective salaries.

http://www.nynewsday.com/media/thumbnails/acrobat/2005-07/11104636.jpg

BrooklynRider
July 12th, 2005, 09:30 AM
I hate AM New York. Today's frontpage is a good example of why... With the London Subway Bombing, Hurricane Dennis Devastating parts of Florida and te growing scandal around Karl Rove, AM NEW YORK led with over paid baseball players.

That paper is pure crap in my opinion. It is saturated with ads and clasdified no less! The discussion over which is better is one that my friends and I have had on numerous occasions. Overwhelmingly we prefer the Metro (although they have assinine writers for Op-Ed seeking only to push buttons). The consensus was that AM NEW YORK was too focused on Entrtainment and Metro delivered news (even if it is predominently from AP).

I used to take the 2 or 3 to work from Grand Army Plaza. There I had a choice between Metro and AM New York. I tended to opt for Metro. Both papers had very friendly newsies handing them out. Now I take th R/N to work and only have the AM New YORK option. I usually take it to see the headline. Today I read the headline and tossed it in thetrash without opening it. "PURE CRAP" is putting it lightly.