3 ms·

I used to love reading The Economist. It was the only printed newpaper/magazine I bothered to read. I always thought they were so insightful about topics I want

by maaku 12y ago

I used to love reading The Economist. It was the only printed newpaper/magazine I bothered to read. I always thought they were so insightful about topics I wanted to learn about but knew very little. Then they ran two articles on topics I did know something about: space tech and bitcoin. And it became plainly obvious that the authors and the editors had absolutely no clue about the subject matter and were merely repeating already debunked pseudo-intellectual arguments from the popular press. I canceled my subscription, and have basically stopped reading news, except the headlines here. If sometime really peaks my interest I'll take the time to research it myself thank you.

anigbrowl 12y ago
A shallow response. It's unrealistic to expect news suorces to be right all the time, especially about abtruse technical topics (it's the Economist not the Scientist). But you can easily rate how good their coverage is overall over time, by comparing the quality of information received with subsequent historical developments and seeing whether the one would have helped you you predict the other. Also, interest is piqued, occasionally in fits.
- R_Edward 12y ago
  Although, if one's interest level were continuously poked into a particular memory location every time it changed, you might find that if you peeked when it piqued you would find that it also peaked. On an unrelated note, I was writing an article for a travel magazine, and found a very well-conceived online database of recommended places to visit. Sadly, I couldn't use it in my article, because I couldn't figure out how to cite the sight site.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
haberman 12y ago
What were the inaccuracies in the articles about space tech and bitcoin?
asveikau 12y ago
> repeating ... pseudo-intellectual arguments from the popular press. I often feel similarly about The Economist. Though overall the quality is above average (sometimes by no small amount), it seems very smug at times and many of its viewpoints feel too conventional for me. It can be pro status quo. But I can usually find similar faults in most reporting, if not worse. So it just becomes a matter of reading everything critically and skeptically, taking the good and the bad together. You take in material and you become aware of where its weaker points may lie, but those weaker points don't often invalidate the whole publication.
nether 12y ago
It's conceivable that they don't maintain the same level of expertise in all fields. That doesn't ruin the entire publication IMO. Just as HN commenters don't know everything about aerodynamics, mechanical engineering, fine arts - but that doesn't stop them from making cringeworthy comments on those subjects. OTOH that doesn't stop me from reading the comments for genuine insights and technical details on software engineering, for which there really is some world class talent here.

by maaku 12y ago

anigbrowl 12y ago

A shallow response. It's unrealistic to expect news suorces to be right all the time, especially about abtruse technical topics (it's the Economist not the Scientist). But you can easily rate how good their coverage is overall over time, by comparing the quality of information received with subsequent historical developments and seeing whether the one would have helped you you predict the other. Also, interest is piqued, occasionally in fits.

R_Edward 12y ago
Although, if one's interest level were continuously poked into a particular memory location every time it changed, you might find that if you peeked when it piqued you would find that it also peaked. On an unrelated note, I was writing an article for a travel magazine, and found a very well-conceived online database of recommended places to visit. Sadly, I couldn't use it in my article, because I couldn't figure out how to cite the sight site.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

haberman 12y ago

What were the inaccuracies in the articles about space tech and bitcoin?

asveikau 12y ago

> repeating ... pseudo-intellectual arguments from the popular press. I often feel similarly about The Economist. Though overall the quality is above average (sometimes by no small amount), it seems very smug at times and many of its viewpoints feel too conventional for me. It can be pro status quo. But I can usually find similar faults in most reporting, if not worse. So it just becomes a matter of reading everything critically and skeptically, taking the good and the bad together. You take in material and you become aware of where its weaker points may lie, but those weaker points don't often invalidate the whole publication.

nether 12y ago

It's conceivable that they don't maintain the same level of expertise in all fields. That doesn't ruin the entire publication IMO. Just as HN commenters don't know everything about aerodynamics, mechanical engineering, fine arts - but that doesn't stop them from making cringeworthy comments on those subjects. OTOH that doesn't stop me from reading the comments for genuine insights and technical details on software engineering, for which there really is some world class talent here.