I don't agree about NYRB being parochial and restricted. If anything, it's one of the more expansive magazines in terms of subject matter covered. While I don't

I don't agree about NYRB being parochial and restricted. If anything, it's one of the more expansive magazines in terms of subject matter covered. While I don't know the Times, I can't think of a literary magazine more dedicated to covering the entire world (geographically, politically, intellectually) as NYRB. For example, NYRB has a lot of foreign reporting and analysis; this last year they have had a ton on Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Libya and a wealth of other countries. Many of the subjects covered — books, art, people — are not American. And while their stable of writers certainly lean in a specific political direction, NYRB tends to favour just quietly reporting the facts, as opposed to bombastically trumpeting political opinions the way that, say, The Economist (which recently insisted that western leaders must bomb Syria) frequently does. There are admittedly exceptions. NYRB has traditionally been critical of Israel, for example. But they are generally critical of war-mongering, persecution and nationalism, so it's hard to argue that they are being one-sided in that sense.