3 ms·
Years ago before electronic devices, The Economist was my "flight fodder" in that I only really bought a copy when I had a long flight and it was long and dens
by jmyeet 4y ago
Years ago before electronic devices, The Economist was my "flight fodder" in that I only really bought a copy when I had a long flight and it was long and dense enough that I'd never get through it all. I haven't read it in awhile. It's disappointing to hear the quality has gone down (if true).
You're not suggesting otherwise but I feel compelled to mention it anyway for completeness: every publication has a political bent. It's not just the editorials or even the reporting itself but also the choice on what to publish. That's not neccessarily a bad thing unless that political bent means the publication has a tenuous relationship with the truth.
I'm curious what political stance you have an issue with, as in are you more left-leaning or right-leaning.
The Economist falls into the same bucket I'd put some other long-form print media in like the Atlantic and the New Yorker: it's center-right, specifically neoliberal. That's not necessarily bad. In fact I'd read good content in all 3 of these. You just need to be aware of the lens through which they see the world. The Economist I always found to be pro-Europe (pro-EU and pro-NATO) as one example.
Some might object to the "center-right" label here. To me, that's just evidence of how far the pendulum has swung with the Overton Window in how far right-wing politics currently skews, not just in the US. CNN is a center-right media outlet, for example. Coverage of Israel-Palestine is a prime example of just how one-sided this is.
More progressive media outlets are slim pickings honestly. For general news coverage, within limits surprisingly al-Jazeera ranks pretty highly. I say "within limits" because it has the same blind spot all state media does: the state it represents. The BBC is another prime example of this.
- FabHK 4y agoIt's a bit more nuanced than "neoliberal, centre-right", though. The Economist is aware of the failures of markets, in favour of drug legalisation, gay marriage, gun control, measures to curb climate change (they've called for a carbon tax from 1987 onwards), and has endorsed the Democrat rather than Republican candidate in 6 of the last 8 US presidential elections.
- jmyeet 4y agoI don’t disagree with you but consider one of your examples: the carbon tax. This attempts to use capitalism to solve a global problem. That’s the hallmark of neoliberalism: the undying faith in capitalism or simply taking it as axiomatic.