5 ms·

I read the Financial Times and The Economist. I think they are pretty well researched without leaning in a specific direction too much. The comments on FT are a

by tacker2000 4y ago

I read the Financial Times and The Economist. I think they are pretty well researched without leaning in a specific direction too much. The comments on FT are also mostly very civil, with good discussion. The Guardian is “intelligent” but is way too blatantly leftist, to get any sort of balanced information.

nindalf 4y ago
Seconding the Economist. When I read it, I find I can stay in the loop without having to follow the news daily. A weekly high level summary is good enough for me.
rupi 4y ago
Second both FT and The Economist. You can get by just with the Economist if you are happy with it being a weekly. Both FT and Economist are very good at not including any fluff, in the language they use and in the content itself.
- tl_donson 4y ago
  the FT has probably the best info:word count ratio of any daily publication i’ve ever read
jmfldn 4y ago
Everything is biased. I quite like The Economist but it's liberal, "markets first", stance is just as much an ideology as anything The Guardian espouses. Its trick is to make itself seem above the fray, offering a god's eye dispassionate opinion. It is clever marketing and presentation. I rate it for world affairs and it is a good news source. I just think it gets undue levels of praise.
cpursley 4y ago
This, the financial focused papers have to at least be somewhat honest in their reporting as investors and other business folks depend on their reporting. Vs advocacy of whichever social/political/etc issue is currently in vogue.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  How do you explain the popularity among that crowd of the Wall Street Journal?
  - xref 4y ago
    The WSJ news section is generally described as center-right, and the editorial pages as hard-right
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      The WSJ is published by the same organization as Fox News.
    - mancerayder 4y ago
      Hard-right implies nationalism or even fascism. I think you mean conservative. I think it's important to be able to articulate the ideas of those we disagree with. One can be supportive of right-wing economic ideas and socially conservative positions without being hard-right. I say this as a moderate reader of the WSJ, and not a Republican. The silo-ing of ideas leads to alienation among people and preconceptions of what the other people believe and who they are. That's tearing the country apart.
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        The WSJ advocated nationalism and was a fellow traveller with fascists during the Trump administration. The WSJ editorial page definitely includes substantional hard right content. > The silo-ing of ideas leads to alienation among people and preconceptions of what the other people believe and who they are. The WSJ is the most siloed of the major publications. I challenge you to find anything supporting a Democratic or liberal position. As I wrote in another comment, I once collected about two weeks of opinion articles, which IIRC was abouyt 200 of them. As I recall, only one included (not advocated) any support of a Democratic position, only three included any support of liberal positions. The NY Times covers the political spectrum, from Ross Douthat to Bret Stephens (former WSJ opinion page editor) to David Brooks, etc.
wizwit999 4y ago
It's comical to call the Economist unbiased. They make their bias very very clear.
- chaorace 4y ago
  I think a better way to put it is that The Economist has a bias unique to itself. They typically publish articles which are consistent with their own particular editorial voice rather than remaining properly dispassionate. Really, the big difference between The Economist and other popular "biased" publications is that The Economist has avoided becoming a party mouthpiece. Yes, it's certainly a political publication, but they arrive at that position without having fallen prey to the usual motivated reasoning. I credit this unusual distinction to the international nature of their operation and the focusing effect granted by virtue of hanging everything on a single overarching topic.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nindalf 4y ago

Seconding the Economist. When I read it, I find I can stay in the loop without having to follow the news daily. A weekly high level summary is good enough for me.

rupi 4y ago

Second both FT and The Economist. You can get by just with the Economist if you are happy with it being a weekly. Both FT and Economist are very good at not including any fluff, in the language they use and in the content itself.

tl_donson 4y ago
the FT has probably the best info:word count ratio of any daily publication i’ve ever read

jmfldn 4y ago

Everything is biased. I quite like The Economist but it's liberal, "markets first", stance is just as much an ideology as anything The Guardian espouses. Its trick is to make itself seem above the fray, offering a god's eye dispassionate opinion. It is clever marketing and presentation. I rate it for world affairs and it is a good news source. I just think it gets undue levels of praise.

cpursley 4y ago

This, the financial focused papers have to at least be somewhat honest in their reporting as investors and other business folks depend on their reporting. Vs advocacy of whichever social/political/etc issue is currently in vogue.

wolverine876 4y ago
How do you explain the popularity among that crowd of the Wall Street Journal?
- xref 4y ago
  The WSJ news section is generally described as center-right, and the editorial pages as hard-right
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    The WSJ is published by the same organization as Fox News.
  - mancerayder 4y ago
    Hard-right implies nationalism or even fascism. I think you mean conservative. I think it's important to be able to articulate the ideas of those we disagree with. One can be supportive of right-wing economic ideas and socially conservative positions without being hard-right. I say this as a moderate reader of the WSJ, and not a Republican. The silo-ing of ideas leads to alienation among people and preconceptions of what the other people believe and who they are. That's tearing the country apart.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      The WSJ advocated nationalism and was a fellow traveller with fascists during the Trump administration. The WSJ editorial page definitely includes substantional hard right content. > The silo-ing of ideas leads to alienation among people and preconceptions of what the other people believe and who they are. The WSJ is the most siloed of the major publications. I challenge you to find anything supporting a Democratic or liberal position. As I wrote in another comment, I once collected about two weeks of opinion articles, which IIRC was abouyt 200 of them. As I recall, only one included (not advocated) any support of a Democratic position, only three included any support of liberal positions. The NY Times covers the political spectrum, from Ross Douthat to Bret Stephens (former WSJ opinion page editor) to David Brooks, etc.

wizwit999 4y ago

It's comical to call the Economist unbiased. They make their bias very very clear.

chaorace 4y ago
I think a better way to put it is that The Economist has a bias unique to itself. They typically publish articles which are consistent with their own particular editorial voice rather than remaining properly dispassionate. Really, the big difference between The Economist and other popular "biased" publications is that The Economist has avoided becoming a party mouthpiece. Yes, it's certainly a political publication, but they arrive at that position without having fallen prey to the usual motivated reasoning. I credit this unusual distinction to the international nature of their operation and the focusing effect granted by virtue of hanging everything on a single overarching topic.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]