3 ms·
The Economist used to be pretty solid IMO until about 12 years ago, about the same time the Harvard Business Review started to morph into a business version of
by olivermarks 5y ago
The Economist used to be pretty solid IMO until about 12 years ago, about the same time the Harvard Business Review started to morph into a business version of Oprah! magazine.
These days The E, HBR, MIT Review etc are mostly like last century women's magazines, complete with agony aunts and advice. The Economist's geopolitical stance seems to be closely aligned with the WEF along with the FT ( slogan 'A new world is possible. Let's not go back to what wasn't working anyway').
End of an era for these legacy media companies...
- liketochill 5y agoWhat do you recommend instead?
- olivermarks 5y agoI tend to rely on online recommendations of specific articles- including the Economist - and try to read as many views as possible. I feel for now the era of legacy media 'packaged' information and views that newspapers, magazines and TV became is over, and that mastheads have lost a huge amount of their prestige. (Joe Rogan's Neilsen ratings versus cable is pretty astonishing for example). Having said that I get up in the morning and look at the FT, WSJ & Zerohedge in that order and then typically read all sorts of things online throughout the day, often based on recommendations (thanks HN!) Twitter etc. My mother worked for the UK conservative party before I was born and taught me as a youth to read the Daily Telegraph 'so I would know what the buggers are thinking'. This rather cynical view is how I tend to consume most establishment products... Regarding the Economist I used to like their 'Schumpeter' free market ethos which they seem to have lost recently