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

How The Economist covers the world

medium.economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#41

Post by scandox »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #33
scandox wrote: post #27

When 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.

I have a very high opinion of those persons! My comment is only intended to give some idea of what the level is vis-a-vis their "intelligence" gathering operations. Their investment in on the ground data gathering is not exactly massive.

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#42

Post by diminish »

burkaman wrote: post #40
davidhyde wrote: post #38

I 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.

As the GP said, especially if you know the topic well, Economist fails to impress you with the sometimes "shaky" facts they embed to make a point. What I don't like at Economist the most is the divine-like inner voice they are using to report on a totally controversial area in a totally foreign topic and choose a side as if it's very easy to choose sides. For example, you're a banker reader in London, and they give you bundled, consumption-ready opinion about why Mr X in LaLaLand is a better match for governing the fiscal politics and not Ms Y.

It's as if they are ruling the world rather than doing journalism.

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#43

Post by tomjen3 »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #34
tomjen3 wrote: post #19

Earlier 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.

>> 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.

I am not about to pay for an long-distance international call just over what should be done with an internet form.

I grant you the abuse might not have been necessary, but I wanted results and I wanted them yesterday.

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#44

Post by burkaman »

diminish wrote: post #42
burkaman wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As the GP said, especially if you know the topic well, Economist fails to impress you with the sometimes "shaky" facts they embed to make a point. What I don't like at Economist the most is the divine-like inner voice they are using to report on a totally controversial area in a totally foreign topic and choose a side as if it's very easy to choose sides. For example, you're a banker reader in London, and they give y…

My point is that I am intentionally paying for bundled, consumption-ready opinions about the world. I have other news sources for more detailed "just the facts" coverage of places and subjects I care about, but nobody has enough time to keep up with the entire world at that level. The Economist gives me a nice overview of world events from a well-defined, consistent, relatively moderate viewpoint, and often covers topics that other "general interest" news sources don't.

I completely understand that not everyone agrees with their views or likes this style of journalism, I just disagree that there's any "trick" or false advertising going on.

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#45

Post by tomjen3 »

jumpCastle wrote: post #39
germinalphrase wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

15 minutes? That is insane. No wonder journalism is dying.

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#46

Post by frandroid »

jumpCastle wrote: post #39
germinalphrase wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's even longer than a phone call...
Post reply on HN