Most interesting that The Economist, which has it's own substantial CMS web presence, is using Medium to publish!
They've also been experimenting with Snapchat. So they're definitely open to pushing their content out through alternative channels.
How The Economist covers the world
31–40 of 46 posts
Re: How The Economist covers the world
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't insult the Economist, but their audience. And your point is simply factually wrong. It's probably easy to find statistics on their readership showing they're far more educated and international than average. But I'll use a slightly more fun way to show it: it's the only medium I know that regularly has classifieds in the back selling whole airports in Gambia, refineries in Vietnam, or inviting applications…
> It's probably easy to find statistics on their readership showing they're far more educated and international than average. That doesn't say much -- in fact the idea that these university degrees say anything of importance about the readership is totally contrary to how I view this, which would be much closer to the concept of the "intellectual yet idiot" (IYE) as proposed by Nassim Taleb (and similar ideas, put fo…
I fail to see how you have pulled Trump and Bush into this, are they both subscribers?
Re: How The Economist covers the world
#33When I was at University two individuals I knew, in different countries, WERE the Economist Intelligence Unit for those (small) countries. They were smart kids but they didn't really have a clue. They were just really good at digesting a lot of media and once they were EIU had the credibility to pick up the phone to some pundits, who liked to see themselves quoted.
Was the content their information led to bad? Your comment seems to be based on your personal opinion of these persons rather than a critique of the finished product.
Re: How The Economist covers the world
#34I'd like to subscribe to The Economist, but a 12-month digital-only subscription costs US$285 from Australia, nearly double the US figure, which I can't yet justify as a relatively casual reader. The leaky paywall (and convenient scraped ePub versions for eReaders) makes it even easier to not contribute to funding quality journalism. If I could choose a dollar amount, I'd happily donate US$75/year recurring for what…
And if you do subscribe you have to call them to cancel. You can subscribe on their website, but they only unsubscribe through a phone line. I managed to get unsubscribed by hurling abuse at their support staff, but I still think it should be considered fraud.
>> I managed to get unsubscribed by hurling abuse at their support staff, but I still think it should be considered fraud.
This paints you in a much worse light than them. I've cancelled with them twice. I called and said 'I would like to cancel' and they refunded me what was necessary. Took about 30 seconds - no abuse required.
Re: How The Economist covers the world
#35I'd like to subscribe to The Economist, but a 12-month digital-only subscription costs US$285 from Australia, nearly double the US figure, which I can't yet justify as a relatively casual reader. The leaky paywall (and convenient scraped ePub versions for eReaders) makes it even easier to not contribute to funding quality journalism. If I could choose a dollar amount, I'd happily donate US$75/year recurring for what…
Your local library may have an electronic magazine subscription that you can use. I get mine for free via a Zinio client my local library district pays for.
Re: How The Economist covers the world
#36When I was at University two individuals I knew, in different countries, WERE the Economist Intelligence Unit for those (small) countries. They were smart kids but they didn't really have a clue. They were just really good at digesting a lot of media and once they were EIU had the credibility to pick up the phone to some pundits, who liked to see themselves quoted.
Indeed they are notorious for the youth of their staff, and it is occasionally glaringly embarrassing. The writing is mostly of high quality. But they can get smart kids to work for them because it's a great name to have on your resume and they work can be demanding.
I can echo your comment: I was at a dinner party in London back in the mid 1980s and my host's gf worked for the EIU covering east Asia. She was an oxbridge graduate in her mid 20s. She said she couldn't understand why so many people in China, HK, SG etc seemed so anti-Japanese. That said a lot about the UK educational system!
But on the other hand the coverage is relatively broad and commentary relatively deep, and until recently, they assumed their readers were well read which saves a lot of time and gives a lot of depth. Plus I vastly prefer a weekly to daily (or even high frequency) "news" -- if it's still worth discussing a week later perhaps it's interesting. And it's typically unashamedly liberal, and hasn't lost the point of its founding 150 or so years ago, which was to argue for free trade.
I have read every issue since February of 1985 so yes, I am a loyal reader, despite my manifold criticism.
Re: How The Economist covers the world
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's probably easy to find statistics on their readership showing they're far more educated and international than average. That doesn't say much -- in fact the idea that these university degrees say anything of importance about the readership is totally contrary to how I view this, which would be much closer to the concept of the "intellectual yet idiot" (IYE) as proposed by Nassim Taleb (and similar ideas, put fo…
I fail to see how you have pulled Trump and Bush into this, are they both subscribers?
Conversations often expand from their narrow initial scope based upon the received responses.
So, while this was about the Economist in general, the parent response commented on how it "regularly has classifieds in the back selling whole airports in Gambia, refineries in Vietnam, or inviting applications to be the UN's High Commissioner for Complicated Negotiations regarding Time Zones in littoral Antarctica." -- as a way to show that the readership is especially refined and/or intelligent.
My response to this was that the elites who might be interested in buying "whole airports in Gambia" or be involved with the "UN's High Commissioner" are not necessarily refined or knowledgable about world affairs much more than the next person. Not even prominent politicians can be trusted to be nowadays -- to which I used Trump and Bush as examples.
(That said, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were both subscribers too. Many otherwise inane public figures are subscribers - I've met my share).
Re: How The Economist covers the world
#38I used to read The Economist and it made me feel very informed of the world until one day I realized something. It came about because I happened to know a lot of prior detail about the article I was reading about South Africa and although I could not fault the facts listed and the depth of the article, the end result was that it was just plain wrong. The shocking thing for me was that if I didn't know more about the area then I would have been convinced that I knew enough about the subject to form an informed opinion. I believe the trick to their magazine is to create subjective (one sided) articles but to give the impression that they are objective by offering up extensive research. Kind of like a scientist who only publishes results that suit their agenda. Those results may be accurate, detailed and impressive but that's not the whole picture.
I want to know why the villains (people, corporations, governments) they attack justify their actions. Give me a soup of conflicting ideas to ponder instead of cherry picked truths.
If an author makes up my mind for me, I lose interest.
I would be a hypocrite if I didn't mention some good points about the magazine. The writing style is superb and this may sound strange but I find that my inner voice resonates with what I am reading. There are many writers yet the magazine as a whole is very coherent and humor is used expertly to liven up some dry topics.
So there you have it. Read it but don't forget that you're drinking their Kool-Aid.
Re: How The Economist covers the world
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if you do subscribe you have to call them to cancel. You can subscribe on their website, but they only unsubscribe through a phone line. I managed to get unsubscribed by hurling abuse at their support staff, but I still think it should be considered fraud.
NYTimes also requires you to make a phone call to cancel - though they were decidedly polite about it.
I didn't need to call. I canceled last year via chat. It took me 15 minutes, answering about 10 quite annoying questions.
Re: How The Economist covers the world
#40I used to read The Economist and it made me feel very informed of the world until one day I realized something. It came about because I happened to know a lot of prior detail about the article I was reading about South Africa and although I could not fault the facts listed and the depth of the article, the end result was that it was just plain wrong. The shocking thing for me was that if I didn't know more about the…
What gave you the impression they want to be objective? The Economist is very upfront about their bias and positions, more so than any major newspaper I can think of. It's pretty common to see "this newspaper supports x" in an article about a controversial issue. It shouldn't be your only news source, but they've never pretended to be dedicated to objectivity like Reuters or something.