4 ms·

I've never found the quality of articles in The Economist to be particularly good. They're often very broad summaries of a situation lacking any particular dept

I've never found the quality of articles in The Economist to be particularly good. They're often very broad summaries of a situation lacking any particular depth, combined with a fairly banal analysis that seems to restate the current consensus opinion. The analysis can be pretty wrong, particularly for stories that are less talked about in the West (one where it's harder to simply summarize the current consensus opinion). The do seem to have a fairly wide breadth. But given a particular topic, I'm likely to learn much more from an in depth article from most mainstream sources than from an article in the economist.

AJ007 10y ago
I agree that they summarize the current consensus opinion. Cancelled my subscription years ago and rarely read a few articles once and a while. I prefer reading articles where the author's conflicts of interest are clearly disclosed.
- FabHK 10y ago
  Not sure what you mean - The Economist is often opinionated, but they lay out their arguments and don't hide their agenda. I find it much more palatable than the "he said, she said" or "opinions diverge on the shape of the earth" type journalism.
remarkEon 10y ago
When I want to wet my finger and stick it up and see which way the wind is blowing, I'll read The Economist for that week. If you go into it with that mindset it's less easy to hate on it, but harder to see why it's held up as a pantheon of Journalism.
- goldenkey 10y ago
  For those who were curious like I was: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266932/why-does-saliva-on-the-finger-give-correct-direction-of-wind http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266932/why-does-s...
FabHK 10y ago
It's funny, I sort of agree with your description, but entirely disagree with your judgement. What you describe is in my view enormously valuable. For a given article, I often think: Well, that's a pretty accurate description of the situation, the main points of contention, and some opinionated conclusion (maybe with a divergent viewpoint thrown in, but not always). Sure, it's often some young kids from Oxford's PPE (Philosophy, Politics, Economics) programme writing the articles, but they've learned a bit at school and they have access to the best experts. That's what makes it so valuable in my view. I would not call it "banal", but then, I don't necessarily want great originality in my newspaper either. And, mind you, the articles are typically just one page. That's a pretty good achievement for one page: get the best expert's condensed opinion on a topic. As an equivalent, think about any info sec topic, and imagine someone sitting down with tpacek for an hour and then writing a one-page article about it. Even if they have not much clue about the topic, the article might be pretty informative, particularly for one page. Yeah, you can go and read hacker news for months or read Schneier's blog and books and the info sec stuff in depths - but most readers of The Economist don't have the time for that. Providing a concise, informed overview (and view) on a broad array of important topics is what The Economist is good at. Lastly, while I rant, they do have longer articles ("Briefings") and thematic clusters of articles ("Specials"), which give deeper insight.

AJ007 10y ago

I agree that they summarize the current consensus opinion. Cancelled my subscription years ago and rarely read a few articles once and a while. I prefer reading articles where the author's conflicts of interest are clearly disclosed.

FabHK 10y ago
Not sure what you mean - The Economist is often opinionated, but they lay out their arguments and don't hide their agenda. I find it much more palatable than the "he said, she said" or "opinions diverge on the shape of the earth" type journalism.

remarkEon 10y ago

When I want to wet my finger and stick it up and see which way the wind is blowing, I'll read The Economist for that week. If you go into it with that mindset it's less easy to hate on it, but harder to see why it's held up as a pantheon of Journalism.

goldenkey 10y ago
For those who were curious like I was: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266932/why-does-saliva-on-the-finger-give-correct-direction-of-wind http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266932/why-does-s...

FabHK 10y ago

It's funny, I sort of agree with your description, but entirely disagree with your judgement. What you describe is in my view enormously valuable. For a given article, I often think: Well, that's a pretty accurate description of the situation, the main points of contention, and some opinionated conclusion (maybe with a divergent viewpoint thrown in, but not always). Sure, it's often some young kids from Oxford's PPE (Philosophy, Politics, Economics) programme writing the articles, but they've learned a bit at school and they have access to the best experts. That's what makes it so valuable in my view. I would not call it "banal", but then, I don't necessarily want great originality in my newspaper either. And, mind you, the articles are typically just one page. That's a pretty good achievement for one page: get the best expert's condensed opinion on a topic. As an equivalent, think about any info sec topic, and imagine someone sitting down with tpacek for an hour and then writing a one-page article about it. Even if they have not much clue about the topic, the article might be pretty informative, particularly for one page. Yeah, you can go and read hacker news for months or read Schneier's blog and books and the info sec stuff in depths - but most readers of The Economist don't have the time for that. Providing a concise, informed overview (and view) on a broad array of important topics is what The Economist is good at. Lastly, while I rant, they do have longer articles ("Briefings") and thematic clusters of articles ("Specials"), which give deeper insight.