6 ms·

How about the Economist (http://www.economist.com http://www.economist.com)? By far the most intellectual and globally-oriented news website I'm aware of.

alpine 14y ago
It also has an agenda (basically, globalist, pro-EU etc) which is easy to miss if you are overly-impressed by the intellectual veneer. That said, my favourite Economist contribution to the world of letters is the Big Mac index, which is rather clever.
- Spooky23 14y ago
  I don't know about that, the biased stuff is pretty obvious. For example, they ran a cover article a few months back about the poor helpless souls in the City of London and how the big bad bankers from other places were challenging them. I found myself laughing at one point. They are the best source of international news. My biggest issue with it is that reading it is time-consuming, and the weekly cadence is relentless.
  - alpine 14y ago
    I'm not really talking about the 'biased' stuff - they take anonymous contributions from all kinds of people so there are bound to be articles that one considers biased, simply because of this. What I'm referring to is a subtle pro-globalist agenda which contributors from all political backgrounds can unite around. The archetypical UK example is the pro-EU Conservative/mainstream Lib Dem/New Labour group that considers national politics to be a parochial irrelevance to be replaced by supranational institutions. The embodiment of this group is probably (now Lord) Peter Mandleson.
    - Gmo 14y ago
      On the other hand, for mainland EU reader, it has a very liberal ("british") bias :) So I guess the truth is in the middle.
    - mickeyp 14y ago
      They don't take anonymous outside contributions, as least, not without putting their name in the byline (rendering the anonymous bit incorrect); they do publish their articles under pseudonyms -- like Babbage, Bagehot, etc. -- or initials only, as they feel the article and author represent the entire magazine and not just the views of the journalist who wrote the piece.
- vosper 14y ago
  I've never thought their agenda was subtle, or that they make any attempt to conceal it - The Economist is full of statements like "this magazine has long argued for" or "this would be a mistake" when referring to a policy or idea. You might not agree with their viewpoint but they don't hide it.
  - arjunnarayan 14y ago
    It's the british journalistic tradition: every magazine or newspaper openly establishes the fact that it has certain assumptions, and then argues from there. There is no "unbiased" source when it comes to politics/economics. You'll notice that the pure empiricists do not have opinions on macroeconomics. It's only in America that certain news organizations pretend to be unbiased arbiters.
    - _delirium 14y ago
      > It's only in America that certain news organizations pretend to be unbiased arbiters. I don't think that's only an American phenomenon. For example, Germany's Der Spiegel is somewhat famous for projecting a neutral/serious/nonpartisan image (though it also gets criticized for that).
      - yk 14y ago
        Der Spiegel is also a magazine which is famous for a rather strong shift in their agenda. ( And a somewhat good example for the dangers of not declaring a policy viewpoint of a news source. ) [Edit]Typo
    - Thrymr 14y ago
      Yes, but the situation is reversed in television/radio news: the BBC is a pillar of objectivity, and the US market is dominated by cable news talking heads yelling at each other.
      - baq 14y ago
        hardly. al jazeera tries to be objective, a lot of people from bbc work there now.
- propercoil 14y ago
  yep agenda is obvious like you said globalist and banksters pro
josephlord 14y ago
It's OK if you filter out the Neo-classical economics and free (unregulated) markets are good bias. I haven't read it much since 2008 though so it may have changed tack but I doubt it. http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/ http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/ I've been reading Steve Keen's blog and he makes much more sense than other prominent economists. He was one of the few to predict the crash with a model which can actually generate crashes unlike many of the standard economic models. If anyone can point me to some well argued criticism of his theory I would be very interested. I'm not sure about all his proposed remedies to prevent bubbles though, jubilee shares at least feels wrong to me at some level.
- tgrass 14y ago
  This was my impression when I read it regularly years ago. My close friend now reads it cover to cover every issue and based on our conversations in which he references the Economist, either he is misinterpreting it, or they are very Keynesian now. [EDIT] Do Keynesians call themselves Keynesian?
  - jessriedel 14y ago
    There has been a significant shift in the political slant of the Economist during the past 5 years. They continue to be the best coverage of meaningful global political and economic issues that I know of.
    - jeffool 14y ago
      I admit, I'm not as tapped in as I was two years ago, but, do you ever read The Christian Science Monitor?
    - SpikeGronim 14y ago
      I've been reading The Economist for 10 years and I haven't noticed any shift. I read it because they bring me facts that no other news organization that I am aware of can bring me. They are certainly very smart and have a good network of sources. They're also biased towards unregulated markets. I'm a capitalist for sure but unregulated markets are a big problem. I will say I've never forgiven them for cheerleading the Iraq War and then publishing an oblique and weasel-worded come-down in about 2008.
vixen99 14y ago
With some exceptions: http://www.economist.com/node/21558220 http://www.economist.com/node/21558220 Hardly a 'slip'.

alpine 14y ago

It also has an agenda (basically, globalist, pro-EU etc) which is easy to miss if you are overly-impressed by the intellectual veneer. That said, my favourite Economist contribution to the world of letters is the Big Mac index, which is rather clever.

Spooky23 14y ago
I don't know about that, the biased stuff is pretty obvious. For example, they ran a cover article a few months back about the poor helpless souls in the City of London and how the big bad bankers from other places were challenging them. I found myself laughing at one point. They are the best source of international news. My biggest issue with it is that reading it is time-consuming, and the weekly cadence is relentless.
- alpine 14y ago
  I'm not really talking about the 'biased' stuff - they take anonymous contributions from all kinds of people so there are bound to be articles that one considers biased, simply because of this. What I'm referring to is a subtle pro-globalist agenda which contributors from all political backgrounds can unite around. The archetypical UK example is the pro-EU Conservative/mainstream Lib Dem/New Labour group that considers national politics to be a parochial irrelevance to be replaced by supranational institutions. The embodiment of this group is probably (now Lord) Peter Mandleson.
  - Gmo 14y ago
    On the other hand, for mainland EU reader, it has a very liberal ("british") bias :) So I guess the truth is in the middle.
  - mickeyp 14y ago
    They don't take anonymous outside contributions, as least, not without putting their name in the byline (rendering the anonymous bit incorrect); they do publish their articles under pseudonyms -- like Babbage, Bagehot, etc. -- or initials only, as they feel the article and author represent the entire magazine and not just the views of the journalist who wrote the piece.
vosper 14y ago
I've never thought their agenda was subtle, or that they make any attempt to conceal it - The Economist is full of statements like "this magazine has long argued for" or "this would be a mistake" when referring to a policy or idea. You might not agree with their viewpoint but they don't hide it.
- arjunnarayan 14y ago
  It's the british journalistic tradition: every magazine or newspaper openly establishes the fact that it has certain assumptions, and then argues from there. There is no "unbiased" source when it comes to politics/economics. You'll notice that the pure empiricists do not have opinions on macroeconomics. It's only in America that certain news organizations pretend to be unbiased arbiters.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    > It's only in America that certain news organizations pretend to be unbiased arbiters. I don't think that's only an American phenomenon. For example, Germany's Der Spiegel is somewhat famous for projecting a neutral/serious/nonpartisan image (though it also gets criticized for that).
    - yk 14y ago
      Der Spiegel is also a magazine which is famous for a rather strong shift in their agenda. ( And a somewhat good example for the dangers of not declaring a policy viewpoint of a news source. ) [Edit]Typo
  - Thrymr 14y ago
    Yes, but the situation is reversed in television/radio news: the BBC is a pillar of objectivity, and the US market is dominated by cable news talking heads yelling at each other.
    - baq 14y ago
      hardly. al jazeera tries to be objective, a lot of people from bbc work there now.
propercoil 14y ago
yep agenda is obvious like you said globalist and banksters pro

josephlord 14y ago

It's OK if you filter out the Neo-classical economics and free (unregulated) markets are good bias. I haven't read it much since 2008 though so it may have changed tack but I doubt it. http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/ http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/ I've been reading Steve Keen's blog and he makes much more sense than other prominent economists. He was one of the few to predict the crash with a model which can actually generate crashes unlike many of the standard economic models. If anyone can point me to some well argued criticism of his theory I would be very interested. I'm not sure about all his proposed remedies to prevent bubbles though, jubilee shares at least feels wrong to me at some level.

tgrass 14y ago
This was my impression when I read it regularly years ago. My close friend now reads it cover to cover every issue and based on our conversations in which he references the Economist, either he is misinterpreting it, or they are very Keynesian now. [EDIT] Do Keynesians call themselves Keynesian?
- jessriedel 14y ago
  There has been a significant shift in the political slant of the Economist during the past 5 years. They continue to be the best coverage of meaningful global political and economic issues that I know of.
  - jeffool 14y ago
    I admit, I'm not as tapped in as I was two years ago, but, do you ever read The Christian Science Monitor?
  - SpikeGronim 14y ago
    I've been reading The Economist for 10 years and I haven't noticed any shift. I read it because they bring me facts that no other news organization that I am aware of can bring me. They are certainly very smart and have a good network of sources. They're also biased towards unregulated markets. I'm a capitalist for sure but unregulated markets are a big problem. I will say I've never forgiven them for cheerleading the Iraq War and then publishing an oblique and weasel-worded come-down in about 2008.

vixen99 14y ago

With some exceptions: http://www.economist.com/node/21558220 http://www.economist.com/node/21558220 Hardly a 'slip'.