3 ms·
> Plus just getting your news once a week: You seem to believe that the Economist is a newspaper. They clearly say they are _not_. They are a news _filter_ I
by draugadrotten 12y ago
> Plus just getting your news once a week:
You seem to believe that the Economist is a newspaper. They clearly say they are _not_. They are a news _filter_
I find The Economist's core idea to be very good. They "he promise we make to the reader is that if you trust us to filter and distill the news," They do not aim to be reporting the latest breaking news like CNN or Twitter, in real time.
They aim to be the only media you need to read to understand "what matters in the world and what’s going on." No small undertaking, but a great goal.
- tomjen3 12y agoCertainly a great goal, but every newspaper claims they are a filter (All the news that is fit to print is a filter) when they are really a newspaper (ie a paper with news). What I question is the delay. If I have to wait several days to know what is going on, then by definition, I don't know what is going on. Even if I finally catch up on friday, by saturday I will still be behind.
- gerty 12y agoIt really doesn't matter unless it is an integral part of your job, I suppose. Take some of the top headlines today at BBC, e.g. Kenya hostage situation or Iran nuclear deal. In the first case, the situation is ongoing, plenty of speculation. It's gonna change many times before it's resolved, so unless you're a breaking news junkie, it makes sense to read a well-informed article on who and why when it's over. In the second case of Iran deal, it's just "we're close to a deal" + some background information. If you take a look at yesterday's Economist, they have a full analytic article on what's happening with the deal and why it's not there yet. It was printed before the article appeared and it actually explains what's happening so that the BBC article becomes useless.