4 ms·

The Economist does something similar with their Economist Reads column. Their topics are more esoteric though. The best books to understand - The Scottish Inde

The Economist does something similar with their Economist Reads column. Their topics are more esoteric though. The best books to understand - The Scottish Independence Movement - https://www.economist.com/the-economist-reads/2023/05/02/what-to-read-about-the-scottish-independence-movement https://www.economist.com/the-economist-reads/2023/05/02/wha... - Poker - https://www.economist.com/the-economist-reads/2023/04/16/what-to-read-to-understand-poker-the-finest-game-ever-invented https://www.economist.com/the-economist-reads/2023/04/16/wha... - Florida - https://www.economist.com/the-economist-reads/2023/04/16/what-to-read-to-understand-poker-the-finest-game-ever-invented https://www.economist.com/the-economist-reads/2023/04/16/wha... - Investing - https://www.economist.com/the-economist-reads/2023/04/26/five-books-on-the-best-approaches-to-being-an-investor https://www.economist.com/the-economist-reads/2023/04/26/fiv... - Books you’re forbidden from reading - https://www.economist.com/the-economist-reads/2023/02/24/seven-books-you-are-forbidden-from-reading https://www.economist.com/the-economist-reads/2023/02/24/sev...

engineer_22 3y ago
Forbidden books on Economist: https://archive.is/ntK0a https://archive.is/ntK0a
rocauc 3y ago
- Florida link - https://www.economist.com/the-economist-reads/2023/03/24/what-to-read-about-the-sunshine-state https://www.economist.com/the-economist-reads/2023/03/24/wha... (noticed you accidentally linked to the Poker list twice and went looking)
harry8 3y ago
The economist writers are like chatGPT of journalism. It all sounds fine and you think it's great right up to the point it's on a topic you know /anything/ at all about. Suddenly every single time, just on the topics you know just something of it has no depth, no understanding and has no idea what facts it just made up. The writers are clearly intelligent and literary it's just they genuinely don't care to understand the subject of their writing. Try it for yourself. Pick anything you know a bit about then read the economist on it. It's a partial crib sheet at best. I pick investing above and think that list is shallow. Any takers for Florida, poker, Scottish independence, banned books?
- WanderPanda 3y ago
  Seems like you just described journalism in general, or do you think the economist is particularly bad in this regard?
  - harry8 3y ago
    Sure there's always Gell-Mann amnesia [1] And we put less stock in USA Today or Yahoo! news stories than the NYT. Or at least used to. The thing that is particularly bad with respect to the economist is that there are many intelligent, thoughtful, educated people who haven't spotted just how terrible it is. The economist is also particularly bad given they push an agenda then fit the reporting they plagiarise to match that agenda with no references and no byline. "Chat GPT write me an article with respect domestic politics of country X that supports the next possible war between the west and country Y." Chat GPT doesn't write as well as the economist oxbridge grads however the actual content is no worse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
- f5ve 3y ago
  It's true that the writers of the economist are frequently glib. This is compounded by their very strict style guide and editors. Everything sounds paradoxically very distinctive and generic, and it reads like it's all written by the same person. So I can relate to your GPT comment too. But they very rarely get the big picture wrong. Geopolitics, global economic trends, American politics from a distance, etc. I don't think 5 books on this or pop science that are why most people read it. So I agree with you, but I also like the paper a lot.
- jldugger 3y ago
  > It all sounds fine and you think it's great right up to the point it's on a topic you know /anything/ at all about. Suddenly every single time, just on the topics you know just something of it has no depth These are related facts -- journalism for general audiences will always come off shallow to experts. Experts are better off seeking niche publications catering to their expertise, and just supplementing that with some general audience material. Even the experts recognize they layperson vs expert audience distinction -- if you look at Andrew Gelman's five book recommendations, none of them are going to transform you into an expert. At best they are the 5 books that got him excited about the _idea_ statistics.

engineer_22 3y ago

Forbidden books on Economist: https://archive.is/ntK0a https://archive.is/ntK0a

rocauc 3y ago

- Florida link - https://www.economist.com/the-economist-reads/2023/03/24/what-to-read-about-the-sunshine-state https://www.economist.com/the-economist-reads/2023/03/24/wha... (noticed you accidentally linked to the Poker list twice and went looking)

harry8 3y ago

The economist writers are like chatGPT of journalism. It all sounds fine and you think it's great right up to the point it's on a topic you know /anything/ at all about. Suddenly every single time, just on the topics you know just something of it has no depth, no understanding and has no idea what facts it just made up. The writers are clearly intelligent and literary it's just they genuinely don't care to understand the subject of their writing. Try it for yourself. Pick anything you know a bit about then read the economist on it. It's a partial crib sheet at best. I pick investing above and think that list is shallow. Any takers for Florida, poker, Scottish independence, banned books?

WanderPanda 3y ago
Seems like you just described journalism in general, or do you think the economist is particularly bad in this regard?
- harry8 3y ago
  Sure there's always Gell-Mann amnesia [1] And we put less stock in USA Today or Yahoo! news stories than the NYT. Or at least used to. The thing that is particularly bad with respect to the economist is that there are many intelligent, thoughtful, educated people who haven't spotted just how terrible it is. The economist is also particularly bad given they push an agenda then fit the reporting they plagiarise to match that agenda with no references and no byline. "Chat GPT write me an article with respect domestic politics of country X that supports the next possible war between the west and country Y." Chat GPT doesn't write as well as the economist oxbridge grads however the actual content is no worse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
f5ve 3y ago
It's true that the writers of the economist are frequently glib. This is compounded by their very strict style guide and editors. Everything sounds paradoxically very distinctive and generic, and it reads like it's all written by the same person. So I can relate to your GPT comment too. But they very rarely get the big picture wrong. Geopolitics, global economic trends, American politics from a distance, etc. I don't think 5 books on this or pop science that are why most people read it. So I agree with you, but I also like the paper a lot.
jldugger 3y ago
> It all sounds fine and you think it's great right up to the point it's on a topic you know /anything/ at all about. Suddenly every single time, just on the topics you know just something of it has no depth These are related facts -- journalism for general audiences will always come off shallow to experts. Experts are better off seeking niche publications catering to their expertise, and just supplementing that with some general audience material. Even the experts recognize they layperson vs expert audience distinction -- if you look at Andrew Gelman's five book recommendations, none of them are going to transform you into an expert. At best they are the 5 books that got him excited about the _idea_ statistics.