4 ms·

I feel like I asked HN the same question about the Economist a couple years ago. I still really appreciate its broad approach to world news and its slanted-but-

I feel like I asked HN the same question about the Economist a couple years ago. I still really appreciate its broad approach to world news and its slanted-but-two-sided view of politics. Honestly the replacement you're looking for to understand international reality is probably some mix of very costly Stratfor briefings and France24 and DW. (Jacobin? seriously? is al Jazeera too well sourced for you?) Internal US politics aren't covered very well by the Economist so you won't be missing to much by switching to this blend, and most US politics can unfortunately be inferred six months in the future by watching other nascent authoritarian states anyway. Wait for it... Dang is gonna ban me again. BUT I'M DRUNK! Damn it.

Aromasin 4y ago
I put the Jacobin there to make it clear I'm open to good writing from anywhere on the political spectrum. I've read some good stuff from them, and drivel in equal measure, but I find the same with the Economist. I'm looking to try something new and I'm not against a socialist perspective. I didn't put Al Jazeera because I would be against an Qatari monarchist perspective.
- noduerme 4y ago
  I know, but I drew the equivalence because both - like so many propaganda organs of the right, left, monarchists, CCP, putinists or any other set of dishonest shills posing as journalists - share in common the defining feature that nothing they say can be trusted to be objective reporting of fact. A perspective would imply an acknowledgement of an external reality, with objective facts, which might then be open to various arguable interpretations. That's not what's presented by either of those outlets; it is, however, what makes the Economist somewhat interesting. Bending facts, rather than reporting them and then commenting on them, is not "perspective" except in the most recent and/or Orwellian sense of the word.

Aromasin 4y ago

I put the Jacobin there to make it clear I'm open to good writing from anywhere on the political spectrum. I've read some good stuff from them, and drivel in equal measure, but I find the same with the Economist. I'm looking to try something new and I'm not against a socialist perspective. I didn't put Al Jazeera because I would be against an Qatari monarchist perspective.

noduerme 4y ago
I know, but I drew the equivalence because both - like so many propaganda organs of the right, left, monarchists, CCP, putinists or any other set of dishonest shills posing as journalists - share in common the defining feature that nothing they say can be trusted to be objective reporting of fact. A perspective would imply an acknowledgement of an external reality, with objective facts, which might then be open to various arguable interpretations. That's not what's presented by either of those outlets; it is, however, what makes the Economist somewhat interesting. Bending facts, rather than reporting them and then commenting on them, is not "perspective" except in the most recent and/or Orwellian sense of the word.