Live data from Hacker News

For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

economist.com

41–50 of 151 posts

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#41

The Economist has swung increasingly right-wing in its editorial stances and even editing over the last several years. It will be interesting to see if this change has any impact either way.

As a subscriber of the economist since 2003, I'm curious to know which articles and views you are referring to. If anything, the Economist is one of the most (if not the most) balanced magazine I've ever come across.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#42
post #14

My life has changed for the better since subscribing to the Economist in 2011. For me, it's not about paying for content (which is great) but for the 'feeling of being informed'. After reading each issue I feel informed about what is going on around the world. This has sparked many conversations with people from around the world. I hope that following this transition that 'feeling of being informed' will not go away…

I coincidentally also subscribed to the Economist in 2011 and I can relate to the feeling of being informed. However I had to cancel my subscription in 2013 for lack of time. After a while, I could never finish an issue. To be honest I have regretted my decision and I now feed on lesser quality news from "free" sources. It really is a great publication but I couldn't justify the spending or the piling up of issues. I…

I did the same - subscribed in 2007 and cancelled it in 2012. And I am here in minority but I cancelled it BECAUSE of its content. The barrage of anti China news, anti India news, and then the lack of any standing on any issue except free market. Economist consistently backtracks on everything if it somehow results in more free market. It is why it was established in the first place so why complain? The height was when they published an article saying how Iran is against hezbollah but two issues later they said Iran must stop supporting hezbollah. Then they once went on for several weeks about chinese government's crackdown on prostitution and how it is fomenting dissent. Then a train crashed and again they went harping about how dissent was just around the corner. Moving out of West in 2010 suddenly showed me how Economist is just a high end mouth piece of British government, hidden behind sophistication and the prestigious name. So I decided to just cancel my subscription.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#43
post #26
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I coincidentally also subscribed to the Economist in 2011 and I can relate to the feeling of being informed. However I had to cancel my subscription in 2013 for lack of time. After a while, I could never finish an issue. To be honest I have regretted my decision and I now feed on lesser quality news from "free" sources. It really is a great publication but I couldn't justify the spending or the piling up of issues. I…

The key to reading the Economist is to go into it not planning to read the whole thing. My approach: Read all the short blurbs in the first couple of pages, then most of the 1/2 page articles that follow, note any that seem interesting, then seek out the longer versions deeper in the issue. As you work through the issue, skip or lightly skim the rest that don't spark interest.

Your "reading" it still, what is this 2005?? The audio edition is amazing! After three years of listening to every issue I think I may be picking up a British accent in my day to day life.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#44

I've been reading The Economist for ten years, including this week's issue during my BART ride this morning. Other commenters have voiced appreciation for their in-depth reporting and liberal (in the classical sense of free people and free markets) values, but we haven't mentioned the paper's sense of humor -- the jokes are small but clever, and make for a more interesting read than the Wall Street Journal or Financi…

They don't get enough credit for their humour. The covers sometimes have me cutting them off and hanging them on the wall – a great recent example was the "Hiyatollah!" cover.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers/2015-07-16/ap-e...

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#45
post #34

I thought it was interesting that they mentioned they have 10M twitter followers compared to 5.6M Facebook fans - interesting given Facebook has 5x the MAU of twitter.

Important people use Twitter. Teens and grandmothers use Facebook.

Teens don't use Facebook.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/30603/20150203/faceook-los...

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#46
post #28

The Economist is a prime example of how for-pay curated content can work and can work well to serve a market... a wide market. Can you imagine, just imagine, how craptastic The Economist would be if it were "free" and all you had to do was endure curated advertisements? PS I would pay extra if they would stop stapling in those cardboard subscription cards in the middle of the (print) issue. PPS I feel the same way ab…

Economist is the only publication i pay for. I'm not sure how many newspapers/magazines could really follow suit. There is only so many high quality sources anyone can read, its a small niche I think. Also the average economist reader is probably quite high on income so I suspect thats a skews their ability to charge

I really enjoy the print version of Popular Science, if you're looking for another.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#47
post #41

The Economist has swung increasingly right-wing in its editorial stances and even editing over the last several years. It will be interesting to see if this change has any impact either way.

As a subscriber of the economist since 2003, I'm curious to know which articles and views you are referring to. If anything, the Economist is one of the most (if not the most) balanced magazine I've ever come across.

Come on. It's the left-wing weekly magazine. I can't read it. It's Keynesianism propaganda.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#48
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important people use Twitter. Teens and grandmothers use Facebook.

Teens don't use Facebook. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/30603/20150203/faceook-los...

That article seems to indicate that 88% of teenage social media users use Facebook.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#49

My life has changed for the better since subscribing to the Economist in 2011. For me, it's not about paying for content (which is great) but for the 'feeling of being informed'. After reading each issue I feel informed about what is going on around the world. This has sparked many conversations with people from around the world. I hope that following this transition that 'feeling of being informed' will not go away…

I subscribed to the economist sometime in the middle of 2012 and did not have a positive experience. I'm convinced that much of the allure of the economist comes from that it is frank contrarian news source. I don't like the anonymous authorship for reasons which have been stated on hacker news in other economist posts. The economist is sneaky. All of the articles are fact/numbers based and then shoehorned with a pol…

I was subscribed to the economist for several years, and unsubscribed once I figured out that much of their content on non-western countries is either heavily tinted, or outright false.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#50
post #28

The Economist is a prime example of how for-pay curated content can work and can work well to serve a market... a wide market. Can you imagine, just imagine, how craptastic The Economist would be if it were "free" and all you had to do was endure curated advertisements? PS I would pay extra if they would stop stapling in those cardboard subscription cards in the middle of the (print) issue. PPS I feel the same way ab…

I would not put the NYT in the same league as The Economist. The NYT used to be a quality publication, but recently has been going down hill, fast (recent fiasco with quickly edited extremely one-sided article on Ellen Pao's verdict, etc)

I have been a subscriber to The Economist for 25 years now, and while I don't always agree with their opinions, their articles are unquestionably well researched - and beautifully written (and often tongue-in-cheek, British-style).

Post reply on HN