Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 151 posts

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

#61

Post by ska »

eevilspock wrote: post #56
kanwisher wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Quality and accountability is what happens when we pay. We've traded quality and accountability for "free" garbage floating in a sea of ads. The NYTimes is still too dependent on advertising. That they consider "native advertising" acceptable shows compromised journalistic principles. "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks." – Jeff Hammerbacher, fmr. Manager of Fa…

   Quality and accountability is what happens when we pay.
This may plausibly be necessary, but it certainly isn't sufficient.

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

#62

Post by glup »

antr wrote: post #41
felixgallo wrote: post #37

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.

I think the pro-free-trade, anti-regulation, anti-union, and anti-populist sentiment used to be limited to the 'leaders' or specific editorials; since ~2006 it has become much more common in the content articles.

I think it's 1) more balanced than most 2) still not very balanced and 3) easy enough to sort out the facts from the liberal (in the global sense of the word) triumphalism.

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

#63

Post by eterm »

Retric wrote: post #38
kanwisher wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

At 1$/week you can pay for 1 author per ~2,000 subscribers. That can work at a really small scale as long as the rest of your costs are kept low.

$1/week is a lot for what a single author could put out. If you take into account time researching, I can't imagine that would amount to more an article per week at any kind of quality?

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

#64

Post by saryant »

Ollinson wrote: post #60
mdekkers wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The economist is very good at providing readers with the illusion of being informed. Think about how multifaceted US policy is on any given day of the year. The economist boils down similar issues to a blurb on a page with a heading that says "middle east." So now you can turn that page and be confident that for this week you know what's going on in the middle east. The truth is the economist fills a void. Before rea…

In any given issue the Middle East & Africa section is 4-5 pages long, hardly a "blurb".

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

#65

Post by ersii »

MichaelGG wrote: post #55
kbenzle wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How does that help with time? Nearly everyone reading it is most certainly capable of reading far, far faster than listening, no? I suppose if you have an unfortunate, long commute, it might work, but otherwise?

When you're doing physical tasks while not having to co-operate with someone else, you can listen to the audio version while continuing to execute on the physical task.

You can also listen while moving your person about from place to place, which can be quite hard or inefficient to do while reading.

I certainly spend a lot of time moving from one place to another. I also assume there are plenty of people who do the same.

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

#66

Post by Ollinson »

saryant wrote: post #64
Ollinson wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economist is very good at providing readers with the illusion of being informed. Think about how multifaceted US policy is on any given day of the year. The economist boils down similar issues to a blurb on a page with a heading that says "middle east." So now you can turn that page and be confident that for this week you know what's going on in the middle east. The truth is the economist fills a void. Before rea…

In any given issue the Middle East & Africa section is 4-5 pages long, hardly a "blurb".

That's 4-5 pages that claim to adequately cover the financial and political current events of 71 countries

I think I'm justified in being skeptical.

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

#67

Post by saryant »

Ollinson wrote: post #66
saryant wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In any given issue the Middle East & Africa section is 4-5 pages long, hardly a "blurb".

That's 4-5 pages that claim to adequately cover the financial and political current events of 71 countries I think I'm justified in being skeptical.

...per week. I highly doubt their goal is to inform you on all current events in the region in a single week. But it's a weekly and over time a reader would develop a cursory understanding of events across the region (they also briefly touch on the highlights in the "The World This Week").

I think they're assuming their readers will know how to dig further on events they find relevant. Personally I find The Economist pairs well with a subscription to Foreign Affairs.

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

#69

Post by crdoconnor »

Ollinson wrote: post #57
crdoconnor wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm convinced that much of the allure of the economist comes from that it is frank contrarian news source. Contrarian to what? It follows the Washington Consensus pretty much religiously. It also came out in favor of George Bush and the Iraq war in the beginning (when everybody else was) and against them after (when everybody else was also).

Sticking to the theme of US elections, it also came out for Barack Obama in 2012. That's pretty contrarian considering The Economists history and Mitt Romney's policies on Wall Street. The vast majority of economist articles can be summed up as "you thought it was that way, but it's actually this way."

Nah, Obama is a pretty neoliberal President, just a different flavor to Romney. Very bankster friendly.

If they start supporting Bernie Sanders' run, though, I'll take notice.

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

#70

Post by icebraining »

eevilspock wrote: post #56
kanwisher wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Quality and accountability is what happens when we pay. We've traded quality and accountability for "free" garbage floating in a sea of ads. The NYTimes is still too dependent on advertising. That they consider "native advertising" acceptable shows compromised journalistic principles. "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks." – Jeff Hammerbacher, fmr. Manager of Fa…

I'd say you overestimate the number of people working on ad-supported software. Many, if not most of us are working on for-pay software and services.

The reason I'm ambivalent about ads is not because it funds my paycheck (it doesn't, we charge for our services), but because for all their evils, ads work as a kind of enforced redistribution mechanism, and since geographic adjustments of prices work poorly on the web, I fear that any kind of payment system will inevitably lead to prices being set at the US middle class income level, shutting out everyone with a lower income level.

I know can afford to pay for stuff, and I'm happy to do it, but that's only been true since I started working, and only because I'm lucky enough to have a decent job.

I suppose "we'll figure it out" is one answer, but I'm afraid I can't put my heart behind a proposal that would have left my teenager self closed off from most of the web.

Post reply on HN