4 ms·
If you haven't already, check out The Economist. They have a strong, clear ideological bias, but the writing is excellent and it's one of the very few places to
by jfb 13y ago
If you haven't already, check out The Economist. They have a strong, clear ideological bias, but the writing is excellent and it's one of the very few places to get any sort of news in English about parts of the world that The Times ignores.
- ComputerGuru 13y agoI'm (usually) a fan, but I hesitated to group it with the others because it's rarely journalism and more often (usually deep and insightful) analysis of events. If you just news on the parts of the world that American media ignores, a combination of BBC News and AlJazeera English is a good option.
- berkay 13y agoI mostly think so as well, though poor quality of analysis in couple of areas I had direct experience with has made me doubt the quality of analysis of in other areas as well.
- hudibras 13y agoOnce you notice how bad The Economist is in your particular area of expertise (whatever that may be), you realize that it's just Newsweek for people who don't want to admit they read Newsweek.
- sxcurry 13y agoI thought this was the case, and bought an electronic subscription a year or so ago. As you say, good International coverage, but the writing was shockingly bad in many cases - technically incorrect and sloppy. I cancelled.
- swordswinger12 13y agoI sometimes feel that way about the science reporting. The other stuff is top-notch, IMO. Or do you mean like grammatically incorrect?
- seldo 13y agoI have been a subscriber to the Economist for, woah, 11 years now. Simply by virtue of its weekly format, it does a good job of ignoring a lot of the interesting-but-transient stuff that wastes your time if you read regular news online. It also has great breadth of coverage -- it's easy to get parochial when you read online news, especially tech, and the E is a reminder that the rest of the world exists and that important things are happening in it. However, the breadth seems to often come at the expense of depth -- on the occasional chances I get to discuss an article in the Economist with an actual expert in that field, it seems their analysis is often dismissed as superficial and they not-infrequently get basic facts wrong (their letters section often contains quite substantial corrections).
- rndmize 13y agoI generally read the Economist by means of their website, and its quite interesting to read the comments on articles; they usually fill in the gaps of the articles or point out errors (especially in the case of articles focused on a single country, which if flawed will bring out the nationals in force.)
- acheron 13y agoThe OP was praising Mother Jones for FSM's sake. I'm pretty sure he's fine with ideological biases.