4 ms·

I was subscribed to the economist for several years, and unsubscribed once I figured out that much of their content on non-western countries is either heavily t

I was subscribed to the economist for several years, and unsubscribed once I figured out that much of their content on non-western countries is either heavily tinted, or outright false.

Ollinson 11y ago
The economist is very good at providing readers with the illusion of being informed. Think about how multifaceted US policy is on any given day of the year. The economist boils down similar issues to a blurb on a page with a heading that says "middle east." So now you can turn that page and be confident that for this week you know what's going on in the middle east. The truth is the economist fills a void. Before reading an issue you know nothing about current events in India. After reading you know something. Something is vastly more power than confessing ignorance in any situation. And if anyone questions you, well, the economist said so.
- saryant 11y ago
  In any given issue the Middle East & Africa section is 4-5 pages long, hardly a "blurb".
  - Ollinson 11y ago
    That's 4-5 pages that claim to adequately cover the financial and political current events of 71 countries I think I'm justified in being skeptical.
    - saryant 11y ago
      ...per week. I highly doubt their goal is to inform you on all current events in the region in a single week. But it's a weekly and over time a reader would develop a cursory understanding of events across the region (they also briefly touch on the highlights in the "The World This Week"). I think they're assuming their readers will know how to dig further on events they find relevant. Personally I find The Economist pairs well with a subscription to Foreign Affairs.
    - IndianAstronaut 11y ago
      Is there any news source which gives that level of detail?
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Of course you won't learn much about a country from reading a single article about it in the relevant section of a weekly newspaper. But if you read it regularly, you'll read numerous articles about that country over the course of a year - probably more than 50 in the case of a moderately powerful and dynamic country like India. Over time you'll realize that some predictions made in the articles pan out, some don't, some is consequential, some not and so on. Reading a single issue will not make you well-informed; at most it will provide you with something to chat about at a cocktail party (if you're the sort of person who likes to chat about the news) or a point of reference if you meet someone from a foreign country and want to ask a topical question. I've found that reading over time is advantageous, not because one collects more and more trivia about more and more places (although that's true) but because the more important themes emerge of their own accord most of the time. By this is I mean that one tends to become aware of major issues long before they rise to the top of the 24 hour news cycle.
NearAP 11y ago
This year, I read an article in The Economist where they endorsed the opposition candidate (Buhari) for the upcoming Presidential election in Nigeria. The article stated that Buhari had thrice contested before and lost the presidential elections and each time accepted the verdict. But that turned out to be false (and the comments in the article said so but Economist did not update the article). Each time Buhari lost the election, he challenged the results (as he had a right to) all the way to the Supreme Court.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  ISTM you're both right. To challenge election results all the way up to a country's Supreme Court, if one has the right to do so, is to accept the institutional verdict on the outcome while disputing the initial outcome (of the vote count). In many developing countries, unwanted election results are followed by rioting, coup attempts, or highly public sulks and political maneuvering often enough that it's a problem for stability. Mounting a challenge within an institutional or constitutional framework is qualitatively different - it puts the rule of law above pure power politics.

I was subscribed to the economist for several years, and unsubscribed once I figured out that much of their content on non-western countries is either heavily tinted, or outright false.

Ollinson 11y ago

The economist is very good at providing readers with the illusion of being informed. Think about how multifaceted US policy is on any given day of the year. The economist boils down similar issues to a blurb on a page with a heading that says "middle east." So now you can turn that page and be confident that for this week you know what's going on in the middle east. The truth is the economist fills a void. Before reading an issue you know nothing about current events in India. After reading you know something. Something is vastly more power than confessing ignorance in any situation. And if anyone questions you, well, the economist said so.

saryant 11y ago
In any given issue the Middle East & Africa section is 4-5 pages long, hardly a "blurb".
- Ollinson 11y ago
  That's 4-5 pages that claim to adequately cover the financial and political current events of 71 countries I think I'm justified in being skeptical.
  - saryant 11y ago
    ...per week. I highly doubt their goal is to inform you on all current events in the region in a single week. But it's a weekly and over time a reader would develop a cursory understanding of events across the region (they also briefly touch on the highlights in the "The World This Week"). I think they're assuming their readers will know how to dig further on events they find relevant. Personally I find The Economist pairs well with a subscription to Foreign Affairs.
  - IndianAstronaut 11y ago
    Is there any news source which gives that level of detail?
anigbrowl 11y ago
Of course you won't learn much about a country from reading a single article about it in the relevant section of a weekly newspaper. But if you read it regularly, you'll read numerous articles about that country over the course of a year - probably more than 50 in the case of a moderately powerful and dynamic country like India. Over time you'll realize that some predictions made in the articles pan out, some don't, some is consequential, some not and so on. Reading a single issue will not make you well-informed; at most it will provide you with something to chat about at a cocktail party (if you're the sort of person who likes to chat about the news) or a point of reference if you meet someone from a foreign country and want to ask a topical question. I've found that reading over time is advantageous, not because one collects more and more trivia about more and more places (although that's true) but because the more important themes emerge of their own accord most of the time. By this is I mean that one tends to become aware of major issues long before they rise to the top of the 24 hour news cycle.

NearAP 11y ago

This year, I read an article in The Economist where they endorsed the opposition candidate (Buhari) for the upcoming Presidential election in Nigeria. The article stated that Buhari had thrice contested before and lost the presidential elections and each time accepted the verdict. But that turned out to be false (and the comments in the article said so but Economist did not update the article). Each time Buhari lost the election, he challenged the results (as he had a right to) all the way to the Supreme Court.

anigbrowl 11y ago
ISTM you're both right. To challenge election results all the way up to a country's Supreme Court, if one has the right to do so, is to accept the institutional verdict on the outcome while disputing the initial outcome (of the vote count). In many developing countries, unwanted election results are followed by rioting, coup attempts, or highly public sulks and political maneuvering often enough that it's a problem for stability. Mounting a challenge within an institutional or constitutional framework is qualitatively different - it puts the rule of law above pure power politics.