I'll strongly opposed that notion. I've been an avid subscriber for just under 10 years, so not as long but long enough. I do truly believe that in the last 1-2

I'll strongly opposed that notion. I've been an avid subscriber for just under 10 years, so not as long but long enough. I do truly believe that in the last 1-2 years the "market-based, socially progressive, pragmatic international strongly opinionated journalism" has taken a back seat to fence-hopping, evidence-lacking, low quality articles that I normally see in the Times or the Telegraph. I've got racks of magazines saved from those 10 years. Flicking back through now and comparing their critique on the EU say, versus 7 years ago, is like chalk and cheese. I'm not sure whether it was Brexit, Trumpism, the new wave of journalism from Vice/Buzzfeed and the like, or journalism's growing obsession with Twitter that caused this strange shift in writing style and substance, but I can physically see the disparity before my eyes now; hence the original post. I'd doubt my opinion on the matter if, like you rightly put, my viewpoint could be seen shifted over time. But I still read and enjoy the same suite of news and articles that I always have in every other case. I'm not looking for a replacement to them. The Economist is an exception in my case, not the norm. If it was generic declinism, I'd be seeing fault in all of my inputs. As it stands, I'm only seeing it in the Economist. Perhaps it's because it's the one I'm so intimately familiar with. Equally, it's possible that the quality has changed. Maybe there's a good chance you're unable to see it because you've changed in tandem with the magazine, not kept to your own path.