Jump to content
Buffaslug

The Athletic Vs. BN - Going to buy only one....

Recommended Posts

BN looks to be $6/mo first year where athletic I can get down to $2.49/mo for the first year.

 

Which would you pick? While the cheaper cost looks nice on athletic, I do want the most bang for the buck.

 

Looking for both Sabres and Bills coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all you care about is the sports, The Athletic is pretty awesome and, IMO, blows away TBN.

It depends how much you read the non-sports part of TBN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Flagg said.

Two months of the Athletic has been worth the annual subscription.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate buying anything and I'm genuinely considering the athletic. Quality is A+ from everything I've read there. I will say though, they are a lot more in depth/intense pieces usually (from what I've seen), so if you're looking for a lighter read, BN might be your best bet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Buffaslug said:

BN looks to be $6/mo first year where athletic I can get down to $2.49/mo for the first year.

 

Which would you pick? While the cheaper cost looks nice on athletic, I do want the most bang for the buck.

 

Looking for both Sabres and Bills coverage.

If you are just looking for Sabres and Bills coverage, either one. If you want additional spots coverage or local news coverage, that's where i think it changes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live about 4 hours east, but grew up in Akron/Middleport, so occasionally I click the odd article but generally just the sports portion in terms of this discussion.

Is the amount of content roughly the same between them? I'm gathering the atheletic is the better option, but I'll admit Wildcard's post does strike a point, I prefer a lot of content but at the same time want to throw my monitor through a wall when I start reading one of those bleacher report articles. Hoping the athletics pieces are not all large in depth pieces.

I see athletic does a trial but it doesn't look like that is an option for the $29.99 1st year deal.

Has the news improved recently since the turnover? didn't some of the writers that were less popular end up at athletic?

I appreciate everyone's time on the matter, some of the analysis and predictions you guys have is better than most of the writing i find anyways, but it only comes in one sentence at a time 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

If you are just looking for Sabres and Bills coverage, either one.

I have to disagree. The News may improve with the addition of a few specialists they have pending, but Vogl and Yerdon beat Harrington for beat coverage, and they have Baker for the kids, Stimson for the fancystats, and Graham for the features. That’s not to mention the national guys like Custance, Lebrun, Pronman and a host of others whose big picture coverage will frequently encompass the Sabres. It’s not close.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I have to disagree. The News may improve with the addition of a few specialists they have pending, but Vogl and Yerdon beat Harrington for beat coverage, and they have Baker for the kids, Stimson for the fancystats, and Graham for the features. That’s not to mention the national guys like Custance, Lebrun, Pronman and a host of others whose big picture coverage will frequently encompass the Sabres. It’s not close.

I agree with you, dudacek, and I'm not one of the Harrington haters.  The Athletic really has put together a great team.  Whether it's sustainable is a big question, but right now, it's far and away the better option if you don't need the other Buffalo News sections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 It depends how you view the big picture. It is my personal opinion that local newspapers need to be supported. And although I may have been neutral on such a business as the athletic at first, the fact that they publicly have stated they will bleed newspapers until they go under really pisses me off. There’s nothing less important in this world than sports reporting.  However, we desperately need people watching the government and businesses to make sure information gets to the public. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SDS said:

 It depends how you view the big picture. It is my personal opinion that local newspapers need to be supported. And although I may have been neutral on such a business as the athletic at first, the fact that they publicly have stated they will bleed newspapers until they go under really pisses me off. There’s nothing less important in this world than sports reporting.  However, we desperately need people watching the government and businesses to make sure information gets to the public. 

I'm not sure if newspapers are capable of reliably "watching" the government or businesses without unwanted bias.  There's a reason corporate news outlets in any media are losing market share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're only interested in Buffalo Sports and enjoy other features besides sports, you're probably better off with BN but if you like a well rounded sports magazine that covers local and national interests The Athletic blows everything else away. Baseball, soccer, NFL, NBA, college football and the NHL it's all there. I can read up on the Astros, Texans, Bills, Sabres and college teams. It has the best NHL coverage I've seen. Reading SDS's comments, let newspapers do the news and editorials, let these sports outlets do their thing.

Edited by jsb
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SDS said:

 It depends how you view the big picture. It is my personal opinion that local newspapers need to be supported. And although I may have been neutral on such a business as the athletic at first, the fact that they publicly have stated they will bleed newspapers until they go under really pisses me off. There’s nothing less important in this world than sports reporting.  However, we desperately need people watching the government and businesses to make sure information gets to the public. 

I agree with this in principle, but the News was bleeding itself far before the Athletic came into play. The articles there have been sub-par for about a decade now. Their coverage is spotty and old fashioned, relying heavily on old timers opinion peices. By the time they got around to trying to change that it was too late. The fact that THAT many of their good writers and editors took the voluntary buy out tells you that the culture there was pretty bad. If you want to support the local press I understand where you're coming from, but I stopped my subscription well before  the Athletic was a thing.

Really, I'm waiting for a "news" version of the Athletic to pop up at this point. Its only a matter of time seeing the success they've had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SDS said:

 It depends how you view the big picture. It is my personal opinion that local newspapers need to be supported. And although I may have been neutral on such a business as the athletic at first, the fact that they publicly have stated they will bleed newspapers until they go under really pisses me off. There’s nothing less important in this world than sports reporting.  However, we desperately need people watching the government and businesses to make sure information gets to the public. 

 

5 hours ago, ... said:

I'm not sure if newspapers are capable of reliably "watching" the government or businesses without unwanted bias.  There's a reason corporate news outlets in any media are losing market share.

I certainly agree with the importance of having watchdogs, but sizzle is right about bias and I think there are tons of non-newspaper watchdogs that have sprung up in the last decade or so.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

 

I certainly agree with the importance of having watchdogs, but sizzle is right about bias and I think there are tons of non-newspaper watchdogs that have sprung up in the last decade or so.  

Sizzle?  I thought that was nobody.  Having no name history is challenging...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SDS said:

 It depends how you view the big picture. It is my personal opinion that local newspapers need to be supported. And although I may have been neutral on such a business as the athletic at first, the fact that they publicly have stated they will bleed newspapers until they go under really pisses me off. There’s nothing less important in this world than sports reporting.  However, we desperately need people watching the government and businesses to make sure information gets to the public. 

I would agree.  However, any news outlet that relies on advertising as a primary source of revenue will always be put in a tough spot.  I'd probably pay $150 a year if there were a good source of government/business news that wasn't influenced by advertising or some other quid pro quo that taints the quality of the material.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SDS said:

 It depends how you view the big picture. It is my personal opinion that local newspapers need to be supported. And although I may have been neutral on such a business as the athletic at first, the fact that they publicly have stated they will bleed newspapers until they go under really pisses me off. There’s nothing less important in this world than sports reporting.  However, we desperately need people watching the government and businesses to make sure information gets to the public. 

 

5 minutes ago, LTS said:

I would agree.  However, any news outlet that relies on advertising as a primary source of revenue will always be put in a tough spot.  I'd probably pay $150 a year if there were a good source of government/business news that wasn't influenced by advertising or some other quid pro quo that taints the quality of the material.

 

Here's the thing:  Local newspapers need to be supported?  Fine.  But why are they the only ones crying poor in the Internet age and putting everything behind paywalls?  TV stations don't do that, and their websites are readily accessible.  Same goes for radio stations.  It seems that newspapers are the only pre-Internet medium unable to adapt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eleven said:

 

Here's the thing:  Local newspapers need to be supported?  Fine.  But why are they the only ones crying poor in the Internet age and putting everything behind paywalls?  TV stations don't do that, and their websites are readily accessible.  Same goes for radio stations.  It seems that newspapers are the only pre-Internet medium unable to adapt.

There are some notable differences between newspapers and TV and radio, and I don't just mean the formats.

Television stations are generally not long form journalism.  They are supported by broadcast agreements with local cable companies and satellite companies who pay them for their signal to be broadcast on their platforms.  While they are required to send a signal for free over the air, the vast majority of their viewership comes from cable/satellite. They have "news" websites but the quality of them and their content are terribly thin.  At BEST they are a step down from newspaper reporting and they still have a steady source of revenue.  They are still crying poor by the way.

Radio stations are in a great spot because they are a medium with 3 hour talk shows.  They earn their money by carrying those shows and getting the ad revenue from people just leaving those stations on while they do a million other things.  Radio is the only medium that doesn't require your eyeballs to function.  This allows you to multi-task.  They also have pretty shoddy news reporting and partner a lot with television stations for their content when it comes to real news.  How many locally syndicated business and government news shows are there in the Buffalo (or Rochester) area?  Not many.  Most of their content is nationally based.

Finally, the biggest nail in the coffin for any PRINT medium is that people simply don't like to read anymore. This is why even sources like The Athletic, at some point, will probably adapt some level of video reporting.  Reading is the most consuming of the three mediums.  You have to have your eyes glued to the content and pay attention the entire time.  While television has a video component, it also has an audio component.  People can listen.

I might think that if newspapers adapted to using a service that "read" the news to people, they might actually gain subscribers.  There's a reason audible.com exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LTS said:

There are some notable differences between newspapers and TV and radio, and I don't just mean the formats.

Television stations are generally not long form journalism.  They are supported by broadcast agreements with local cable companies and satellite companies who pay them for their signal to be broadcast on their platforms.  While they are required to send a signal for free over the air, the vast majority of their viewership comes from cable/satellite. They have "news" websites but the quality of them and their content are terribly thin.  At BEST they are a step down from newspaper reporting and they still have a steady source of revenue.  They are still crying poor by the way.

Radio stations are in a great spot because they are a medium with 3 hour talk shows.  They earn their money by carrying those shows and getting the ad revenue from people just leaving those stations on while they do a million other things.  Radio is the only medium that doesn't require your eyeballs to function.  This allows you to multi-task.  They also have pretty shoddy news reporting and partner a lot with television stations for their content when it comes to real news.  How many locally syndicated business and government news shows are there in the Buffalo (or Rochester) area?  Not many.  Most of their content is nationally based.

Finally, the biggest nail in the coffin for any PRINT medium is that people simply don't like to read anymore. This is why even sources like The Athletic, at some point, will probably adapt some level of video reporting.  Reading is the most consuming of the three mediums.  You have to have your eyes glued to the content and pay attention the entire time.  While television has a video component, it also has an audio component.  People can listen.

I might think that if newspapers adapted to using a service that "read" the news to people, they might actually gain subscribers.  There's a reason audible.com exists.

Honestly, the quality of WGRZ's website is not appreciably different from the quality of TBN's newspaper.  I can read the important parts of both in ten minutes or less.  There's not much local content in TBN anymore, either, except for the sports section.  The City & Region and Business sections have shrunk to the point where, taken together, it's six pages or fewer on most days.  The front page is usually half local, and then the rest of the paper is either from AP or the NYT, or is fluff like the Discount Diva or some gardening tips.

And while reading is the most attention-demanding of the three mediums, it also is the only one that can be done without disturbing others (unless headphones are involved).  I'm not going to listen to the radio when I'm on the can; I'm going to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SDS said:

 It depends how you view the big picture. It is my personal opinion that local newspapers need to be supported. And although I may have been neutral on such a business as the athletic at first, the fact that they publicly have stated they will bleed newspapers until they go under really pisses me off. There’s nothing less important in this world than sports reporting.  However, we desperately need people watching the government and businesses to make sure information gets to the public. 

I'm guessing you didn't attend TBN's funeral as a "newspaper" of record. That publication is clearly, deliberately, inexorably pivoting to being some sort of new-fangled internet-based entertainment site. They're not remotely trying to remain that which you would seek to protect. And their e-board? They're little more than apologists for crony capitalists. Fare thee well, TBN -- you've sluffed off the mortal coil of newspaperdom, although I think that your actual date of death is TBD.

Oh, and insofar as sports coverage goes, The Athletic is clearly the choice to make.

Edited by That Aud Smell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

I'm guessing you didn't attend TBN's funeral as a "newspaper" of record. That publication is clearly, deliberately, inexorably pivoting to being some sort of new-fangled internet-based entertainment site. They're not remotely trying to remain that which you would seek to protect. And their e-board? They're little more than apologists for crony capitalists. Fare thee well, TBN -- you've sluffed off the mortal coil of newspaperdom, although I think that your actual date of death is TBD.

Oh, and insofar as sports coverage goes, The Athletic is clearly the choice to make.

The front page today was all wire services except for an article about the Great Lakes.  I read the city and region and business section (the business section was mostly national articles) in less than five minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Eleven said:

The front page today was all wire services except for an article about the Great Lakes.  I read the city and region and business section (the business section was mostly national articles) in less than five minutes.

Seriously. What The Athletic is doing is not akin to a raptor attacking injured but valiant prey -- The Athletic is more like a bird of carrion, ripping off what's useful from a carcass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eleven said:

Honestly, the quality of WGRZ's website is not appreciably different from the quality of TBN's newspaper.  I can read the important parts of both in ten minutes or less.  There's not much local content in TBN anymore, either, except for the sports section.  The City & Region and Business sections have shrunk to the point where, taken together, it's six pages or fewer on most days.  The front page is usually half local, and then the rest of the paper is either from AP or the NYT, or is fluff like the Discount Diva or some gardening tips.

And while reading is the most attention-demanding of the three mediums, it also is the only one that can be done without disturbing others (unless headphones are involved).  I'm not going to listen to the radio when I'm on the can; I'm going to read.

I don't go on WGRZ but I assume its much like most news sites which is to say... very little news as is indicated by you reading it in 10 minutes or less.

I prefer to read... I hate watching videos.  I can listen to the radio, but I prefer to consume information on my schedule.  If I have 10 minutes to spend, I would rather read than listen to a 10 minute report or watch a 10 minute video of the same thing.  But we're a dying breed... 

I just want better journalism... unfortunately the platform isn't there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unintentionally funny that people who spend $6.00 per day on Starbucks and other "designer" beverages are the same people who complain about spending $6.00 per month for an online newspaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×