6 ms·

People who don't regularly read The Economist probably ought to. It wears its biases on its sleeve, and is the only place in the English language press to find

by jfb 15y ago

People who don't regularly read The Economist probably ought to. It wears its biases on its sleeve, and is the only place in the English language press to find quality, in-depth coverage of parts of the world other than the Lower East Side and the Isle of Dogs.

lemming 15y ago
For Americans, perhaps. The Guardian is also excellent - I subscribe to their weekly and it's fantastic.
- jfb 15y ago
  The Guardian is excellent, but I maintain that The Economist is the best newspaper on the planet, at least in English, even as my politics are much more consonant with The Guardian.
  - james1071 15y ago
    Disagree.The Financial Times is much better than those two, which are pretty patchy.
cschmidt 15y ago
Yes, indeed. It is truly the smart person's news source. There's also an audio edition, where they read the entire issue word for work, which is the best way to spend a long commute. (It takes 8 hours or so.) It is free for subscribers of either the print or online editions.
- jamesbritt 15y ago
  And they have a very nice app for subscribers as well.
ansy 15y ago
I disagree with the Economist's lack of by-lines. Also, it has more of a dogmatic free market ideology than a bias [1]. Whether you agree with that ideology or not, I think it is bad journalism. The Economist basically puts itself on the same level of China's People's Daily nationalist newspaper. Not matter how good the writing might be, it is just propaganda of a different sort. [1] http://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_The_Economist http://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_The_Economist
- bodyfour 15y ago
  I can't argue that their ideological bent is pretty strong (and not one I altogether share, really) but the financial and international reporting is consistently superb. Even though I disagree with them often, I always learn something in the process.
  - nobody31415 15y ago
    it's not like they hide their ideology though - the paper is called the economist! Oddly enough they and The Telegraph (the most conservative UK daily) were the only places with decent science reporting, which is an interesting difference with 'conservative' in the USA
    - davidw 15y ago
      > conservative The Economist is very free-market, but they are not 'conservatives' in the US sense at all. I think the label that best fits them is the European meaning of "liberal". They support some sort of universal health care, gay marriage, drug legalization, science not based on the bible, and other things that send the right wing in the US into apoplectic fits. I heartily agree with the recommendation of subscribing.
    - bodyfour 15y ago
      It's also amusing/scary how many U.S. 'conservatives' consider The Economist to be some sort of lefty-pinko rag.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
pradocchia 15y ago
Let's not forget their stalwart support of war with Iraq in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion. Well-written obits and cultural pieces are one thing. Propaganda to turn the minds of Anglo-American movers and shakers is quite another.
- jfb 15y ago
  Absolutely. And they never cloaked it in faux-objective reportage of the sort that Judith Miller and her ilk rammed down the throats of American newspaper readers under the guise of "just the facts, ma'am" style journalism. The Economist has repudiated its support for the war; has the Times repudiated theirs?
  - Swannie 15y ago
    Exactly. I remember reading an article from an outgoing editor of The Economist. He said there was an unwritten rule: 80% fact, 20% opinion, but that opinion should be clearly stated as such. I usually find the opinions quite easy to notice and consider apart from the facts.
- rwmj 15y ago
  It's wasn't clear at the time (pre-2003) that it was going to end up as a catastrophe. Furthermore the Economist always mentions now that they supported the invasion -- they've never sought to hide the fact.
  - dextorious 15y ago
    Actually it was perfectly, perfectly clear, both that it would end up as a catastrophe as well as the motives for having it
    - speleding 15y ago
      At the time it was far from clear that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destructions. In fact, there was ample proof he had used those weapons previously on Kurds and American intelligence reports claimed he had more where those came from (which turned out to be false, of course, but who knew). There was no way to know that Bush would bungle the whole rebuilding phase and let Iraq slide into anarchy. Hindsight is always 20/20. At least they owe up to the fact that they changed their opinion, I know lots of politicians who'd rather chose to rewrite history instead.

by jfb 15y ago

lemming 15y ago

For Americans, perhaps. The Guardian is also excellent - I subscribe to their weekly and it's fantastic.

jfb 15y ago
The Guardian is excellent, but I maintain that The Economist is the best newspaper on the planet, at least in English, even as my politics are much more consonant with The Guardian.
- james1071 15y ago
  Disagree.The Financial Times is much better than those two, which are pretty patchy.

cschmidt 15y ago

Yes, indeed. It is truly the smart person's news source. There's also an audio edition, where they read the entire issue word for work, which is the best way to spend a long commute. (It takes 8 hours or so.) It is free for subscribers of either the print or online editions.

jamesbritt 15y ago
And they have a very nice app for subscribers as well.

ansy 15y ago

I disagree with the Economist's lack of by-lines. Also, it has more of a dogmatic free market ideology than a bias [1]. Whether you agree with that ideology or not, I think it is bad journalism. The Economist basically puts itself on the same level of China's People's Daily nationalist newspaper. Not matter how good the writing might be, it is just propaganda of a different sort. [1] http://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_The_Economist http://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_The_Economist

bodyfour 15y ago
I can't argue that their ideological bent is pretty strong (and not one I altogether share, really) but the financial and international reporting is consistently superb. Even though I disagree with them often, I always learn something in the process.
- nobody31415 15y ago
  it's not like they hide their ideology though - the paper is called the economist! Oddly enough they and The Telegraph (the most conservative UK daily) were the only places with decent science reporting, which is an interesting difference with 'conservative' in the USA
  - davidw 15y ago
    > conservative The Economist is very free-market, but they are not 'conservatives' in the US sense at all. I think the label that best fits them is the European meaning of "liberal". They support some sort of universal health care, gay marriage, drug legalization, science not based on the bible, and other things that send the right wing in the US into apoplectic fits. I heartily agree with the recommendation of subscribing.
  - bodyfour 15y ago
    It's also amusing/scary how many U.S. 'conservatives' consider The Economist to be some sort of lefty-pinko rag.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

pradocchia 15y ago

Let's not forget their stalwart support of war with Iraq in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion. Well-written obits and cultural pieces are one thing. Propaganda to turn the minds of Anglo-American movers and shakers is quite another.

jfb 15y ago
Absolutely. And they never cloaked it in faux-objective reportage of the sort that Judith Miller and her ilk rammed down the throats of American newspaper readers under the guise of "just the facts, ma'am" style journalism. The Economist has repudiated its support for the war; has the Times repudiated theirs?
- Swannie 15y ago
  Exactly. I remember reading an article from an outgoing editor of The Economist. He said there was an unwritten rule: 80% fact, 20% opinion, but that opinion should be clearly stated as such. I usually find the opinions quite easy to notice and consider apart from the facts.
rwmj 15y ago
It's wasn't clear at the time (pre-2003) that it was going to end up as a catastrophe. Furthermore the Economist always mentions now that they supported the invasion -- they've never sought to hide the fact.
- dextorious 15y ago
  Actually it was perfectly, perfectly clear, both that it would end up as a catastrophe as well as the motives for having it
  - speleding 15y ago
    At the time it was far from clear that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destructions. In fact, there was ample proof he had used those weapons previously on Kurds and American intelligence reports claimed he had more where those came from (which turned out to be false, of course, but who knew). There was no way to know that Bush would bungle the whole rebuilding phase and let Iraq slide into anarchy. Hindsight is always 20/20. At least they owe up to the fact that they changed their opinion, I know lots of politicians who'd rather chose to rewrite history instead.