I Agree

With Josh Marshall's post regarding the benefits and pitfalls of using the internet for keeping up with newspapers. I've noticed the same issues as he does: yes, it's nice that you can browse THE WORLD'S newspapers with a click of the mouse button, but having a genuine paper copy of the paper gives you a much greater chance of reading more articles. With a real newspaper, I'll often find myself glancing at a headline, reading through the first paragraph before I'm able to stop, and continuing on out of plain curiosity. I plead guilty to not doing the same online, in spite of high speed connections both at home and at the office.

On the other hand, most papers on the internet are, well, essentially free. Yeah, I have to register for more and more sites, but they only get an email address I set up specifically for junkmail, which I'll go clean out periodically--a small price to pay. Marshall notes that the Times and the Post have electronic facsimiles of the paper online--for a price--but the price is almost as much as just subscribing. In other words, it's really useful only for people who, say, carry laptop computers around with them.

Note: I think Timshel has noted advantages to actually getting a copy of the newspaper in the past as well.