Anyone read the new i paper?

[Bumperlicious]

Heard about the new independent 'lite' paper on sale today. anyone read it? i don't usually read the indy but thought it might be good for keeping up now i have a new baby, rather than leaving unread copies of the guardian around.

DH got a copy this morning and I await his return..........
He said it was a good length for the train journey.

I bought it, but I've been on here since I got back from shopping

That's not good enough naghoul.

Any opinions yet?

DH reports it's very good. 20p and quality broadsheet-style journalism in a train-length package.

Says he'll be buying it again tomorrow.

I did read it, and I like it, I'd definitely buy it again.

I usually have the Sunday Times or Guardian on a saturday and get through it in a week. I could read the new one every day though.

I am reading it now. I quite like it. Good to read while working. Short articles that get to the point.

How "Independent" is the Independent anyway? It's owned by the same person as the Evening Standard and rents office space and services off of the Daily Mail...

I don't really understand your point, BadgersPaws, about renting office space from the Daily Mail (which was a cost-cutting measure) or, indeed, being owned by Lebedev who has turned the Evening Standard around into a profit-making business from near collapse - I only hope he can do the same with the Indy.

I got i yesterday and I thought it was great - as much as I hate to admit it, I can find acres of foreign news and business analysis a bit overwhelming and with this I felt that I could keep up with what was going on without feeling obliged to flick through lots of sections I have only limited interest in. The design was really good, it felt punchy and, for 20p, a much better alternative to the Metro which is free but which they can't give away to me. Wish they'd get rid of Johann Hari though...

"I don't really understand your point, BadgersPaws"

The Independent used to be quite bold and loud about it being, well, independent when compared to other papers and their well known and opinionated owners and their media empires.

Now it itself is owned by the publisher of multiple newspapers who is a politician and has a complicated relationship with one of the most biased newspaper groups in the country.

The waters aren't as clear as they used to be.

I guess calling it "The not as Independent as we used to be" would take up too much room on the front page though :)

Like it. Bought it today whilst DS was in barbers, and it was informative, smaller articles so no trawling through paragraphs and paragraphs just to get to the point and I too buy the guardian only for it to be left on floor for a week and then used to put DSs shoes on when I polish them on a Sunday!!

Will buy again tomorrow.

I was very impressed too, read The Independent several times a week but can't justify it daily because of cost and never reading it all. This version solves both problems in one fell swoop.

He was briefly an MP in Russia but isn't any more. His "relationship" with the Daily Mail extends to renting office space from them: Associated, the Mail's owner, previously published the Evening Standard. When Lebedev bought it he kept the offices in the Associated building and then brought the Indy titles over there to centralise operations and cut costs. I don't think he is in cahoots with Dacre in any way - I haven't noticed a massive change in direction in the paper's editorial outlook that would suggest that or imply that he was using the Indy as a platform for any political stance he has in Russia.

"He was briefly an MP in Russia but isn't any more."

According to Wikipedia he returned to politics in 2008 and was trying to become a mayor of a town that was getting the Winter Olympics in 2009 but got caught up in allegations of dodgy donations.

So yes he still has political aspirations...

The Indy does more than rent office space from Associated, they share some office services (such as IT and Security) too.

And you have to wonder if the paper would withhold from giving the Daily Mail the occasional good kicking, which it much deserves from time to time, because of it's vested interests.

I'm not saying there is collusion.

What I am saying is that the waters are much muddier now where as they used to be a lot clearer and the paper was genuinely "Independent".

When I was working for the Daily Telegraph a few years ago, we were in the same building as the Daily Mirror and shared security with them (and the Indy as well) - didn't make any difference at all. How many papers do give each other a "good kicking"? It's been a long-held (and completely self-serving) tradition that proprietors and editors don't start spreading dirt about other newspapers' behaviour unless it becomes criminal (Conrad Black's fraud, the NoTW phone-tapping scandal).

I still don't understand what Lebedev's political career in Russia has to do with the running of the Independent - Tony O'Reilly, the paper's previous owner, was a large stakeholder in Heinz but I don't remember anyone fretting over lots of editorials about baked beans, and I haven't noticed any major spike in pieces critical of the Russian government in the past few months. Lebedev seems happy to give the nod to key editorial staff appointments and after that he is interested in the balance book.

I am deeply keen on the tabloid format of i as it is easier to handle on the bus.

Fashion should be interesting too - the Indy's choices aren't as expensive as the Graun or the Telegraph, not as snooty as either (in their different wearying ways), or as frumptastic as the Mail's.

I like my fashion coverage in print the way I like my fashion coverage in fabric - must me make me feel thinner, richer, and better-looking.

"When I was working for the Daily Telegraph a few years ago, we were in the same building as the Daily Mirror and shared security with them (and the Indy as well) - didn't make any difference at all."

They're not just two papers that are in the same offices, the Indy moved into the Mail's offices and is now reliant on Associated for things above and beyond the security on the door. It's not a partnership or some common use of a third party company.

To me that reliance on Associated does put the Indy in a bit of an interesting position.

I'm not aware of how the Telegraph and the Mirror had things set up when they shared, were they just separate companies in the same building? Did one rely on the other?

"I still don't understand what Lebedev's political career in Russia has to do with the running of the Independent"

It just raises questions that never used to be there.

Other than the beans thing you used to say the Independent was independent.

Now you have to say yes it's boss is a Russian politician, but that's OK because of X, Y and Z.

And you have to say yes it's dependent on the Daily Mail for a variety of business critical functions, but that's OK because of X, Y and Z.

It's having to do justifications and bias checking in your mind that you just didn't have to do before.

If political events in Russia were to be covered you do have to be aware that the boss is a Russian Politician.

If a story is about how the boss of the Daily Mail is a tax exile then you have to be aware that the Indy is reliant on the Mail for IT.

None of this is a bad thing, it's how the world works. However it all just used to be so much simpler with the Indy than it now is.

I'm afraid that I don't see the conspiracies and compromises that you do - as a journalist, and one that knows many people working at both the Indy and the Mail, I have to say that I am pleased that the Indy currently has an owner who has the wealth to support it and doesn't, according to the people I know, show much interest in influencing its editorial voice. For anyone working in journalism at the moment, the far greater problem is pissing off potential advertisers/PRs/media partners/sponsors rather than fretting about what the proprietor's politics might involve - I think that is actually far more insidious.

Back to the OP - I bought i again today and it seems to be consistent, I just hope they can keep putting out a good quality product and that it doesn't end up luring readers away from the Indy which would be a bit of an own goal.

"I'm afraid that I don't see the conspiracies and compromises that you do"

Well conspiracies is perhaps taking it too far. But I think it's important to try and be aware of the connections that any media outlet has. For example anything put out by News International on the BBC has to be read with the understanding that Murdoch has his own agenda against the BBC because of his own TV Empire.

And I do believe that most newspapers tend to have a distinctive voice, and that is a part of what they're selling. The business connections of the paper might not be forever pulling on what that voice can and can't say but it's bound to have some influence upon it.

The Indy used to seem really pretty clear of such issues, it's not any more, and to me that is a bit of a shame.

OK, can you give me a clear example of a stance that the Indy used to take which you feel has been compromised since Lebedev took over? And can you then trace that back to his business/political interests and/or being in cahoots with the Daily Mail? I'd be willing to bet that anything you saw as a change was simply having no bloody money to cover it which is the Indy's main problem and has been for at least a decade.

lalalonglegs - I also wondered whether they would lose readers from the main paper.

Also - why buy it when you can get Metro for free?

I don't understand the thinking behind this

wouldn't say the tv guide is as good as they say! They were handing it out for free in Brighton today. Pain that I'd already bought mine!

"OK, can you give me a clear example of a stance that the Indy used to take which you feel has been compromised since Lebedev took over?"

Off the top of my head no, and anyway that's not my point.

What I'm saying is that the bias/agenda/self-interest checker that I used to have in my head when reading the Indy was really pretty small when compared to reading, for example, an NI or Associated product.

The counterpoint to my view would have to say that being reliant on the Daily Mail and having a Russian Politician as an owner are things that would never ever have any affect on the paper and the stories that it does. Never is a very strong and definitive word.

Muddy waters aren't necessarily unsafe waters, but you do need to think a bit more than you used to.

Mind you, at least the DM makes money. And doesn't rely on an army to work experience students to get it out every day.