The Economist is so small (staff of 75 writers, not sure how large the whole organization is but it’s still very small) that I don’t think it counts the same wa

The Economist is so small (staff of 75 writers, not sure how large the whole organization is but it’s still very small) that I don’t think it counts the same way something like the Times counts. That isn’t to take anything away from The Economist, but a magazine isn’t the same scope, to me. Especially since the magazine has changed hands a few times. And if I’m going to be brutally honest, The New Yorker is actually the magazine that has adapted to digital the best and if it were its own business and not one of the things propping up Condé Nast, I’d list it alongside the Times. (Thinking about it more, The Atlantic is close to successfully pivoting but I don’t know if I can say it has done it quite yet. And again, it had to sell itself) FT is a fantastic newspaper but I think it’s much more akin to WSJ, where its paywall and subscriber base insulated it from the challenges than a lot of other papers. But that’s a good call-out as a paper that has done its part to pivot like the Times has. (It has also been sold, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but is worth noting). The Times, to me, is unique in that it’s investment in its tech has been as significant as it has. And not just for the apps like Cooking and Games, but the commitment to the full stack within its storytelling, its video, its audio. It is really remarkable from a product perspective, as much as from a journalism perspective. The core product it offers is still news, but it has managed to really change the medium and packaging of its offerings in a very demonstrable way.