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

Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 320 posts

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#111

Post by pjc50 »

dpacmittal wrote: post #48
nerdawson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> …would like to see an alternative that is at the same quality level as the Economist (but with more neutral reporting and individual author names given)… More publications should remove the byline. Individual attribution incentivises journalists to try and stand out which typically means making intentionally inflammatory statements.

Interesting, my first thought was that attribution will add accountability and authors would be more careful of their words.

The Times columnist who got cited in two mass shooter manifestos as an inspiration is still working.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#112

Post by erikpl »

gibsonf1 wrote: post #100

Quoted post unavailable.

Media Bias Fact Check describes it as a very right-biased outlet with questionable factuality. They are also categorized as "right-biased" by Ground News, "right-leaning" by AllSides and "far-right" by Wikipedia. Maybe not the best source for neutral and factual news coverage?

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#113

Post by vixen99 »

pjc50 wrote: post #9
montgomery_r wrote: post #3

The Spectator has - generally high quality writing - a quirky (but data driven) approach - a longer history than any other magazine - a UK focus - a right wing bent, but with plenty of left wing ( or apolitical) writers for balance. Might be a solution? I gave up on the Economist after 20years 20 years ago, for much the same reasons you state!

The Spectator is hyper-partisan nonsense that will make you less well informed. I can't imagine who the "left wing" writers on it are supposed to be?

With a strong statement like that it would be helpful if you could provide an example or two that makes your point.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#114

Post by arbitrage »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #51
mellosouls wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Private Eye pretty much the only essential publication in the UK for me.

Satire and comedy panel shows (HIGNFY, Mock the Week, Daily Mash, etc.) have been a major source of news and debate for me over the last decade or so. The BBC appear to be reflecting this by cancelling all news related comedy shows on TV -- presumably following pressure from the Tory government? The BBC also appear to have put a month-delay on podcasts which prevents them from helping u inform opinions on recent news…

Mock the Week was recently cancelled.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#115

Post by mellosouls »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #51
mellosouls wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Private Eye pretty much the only essential publication in the UK for me.

Satire and comedy panel shows (HIGNFY, Mock the Week, Daily Mash, etc.) have been a major source of news and debate for me over the last decade or so. The BBC appear to be reflecting this by cancelling all news related comedy shows on TV -- presumably following pressure from the Tory government? The BBC also appear to have put a month-delay on podcasts which prevents them from helping u inform opinions on recent news…

I agree with much of that, apart from the last paragraph but I think it is more likely that any deterioration of programming - while possibly coming from new pressure (including unwelcome political pressure from the government) - is indicative of a lack of depth in talent across the political spectrum that is exposed under the new light.

This has been clear for years, but perhaps there is a new urgency at the top to impress their new masters.

A lot of British comedians - at least those trying to be topical, frankly suck, with no obvious reason for their rise to fame over your average pub "wit" beyond plugging away, saying the right things, and being chums with the right people; the stronger shows succeeding despite their presence rather than because of them.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#116

Post by skrebbel »

PedroBatista wrote: post #93
skrebbel wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They ( as many others ), didn't view Ukraine fighting back and Western help as a good thing, Ukraine capitulation was "the right thing to happen" Nearly every issue since February this year has contained calls to support Ukraine, titles like "Why Ukraine must win" and so on. They're very hawkish pro a Ukraine all-out victory, often describing Ukraine as fighting for all of Europe's (or even the entire West's) freed…

You seem to view things with a very broad brush, did you actually read the magazine or just peruse? Just as an example, did you read the things Mearsheimer wrote? Since this Economist thing has become a quagmire due to Ukraine ( my fault for bring it up ), I reiterate my point: I don't really have anything against them, not even their biases. I do get pissed when they somehow ride their wave of superiority when in fa…

> You seem to view things with a very broad brush, did you actually read the magazine

Yes, the print edition. Care to actually rebuke my arguments instead of making assumptions?

> Just as an example, did you read the things Mearsheimer wrote?

I googled this because I was confused because I could not remember seeing his ideas there (which I remember finding totally ridiculous). Turns out this was a "by invitation" section, clearly presented as an outside opinion. I haven't seen them reiterate his ideas anywhere (which I'd summarize as "it's totally OK for powerful countries to scare neighbours into becoming 'buffer zone' client states without any say in the matter"), they're very much for Ukraine's ability to determine their own future.

If you're angry about a paper publishing opinion pieces you're going to be angry about just about every paper out there because every one of them is going to sooner or later publish an opinion piece that you disagree with. That's the whole idea of opinion sections.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#117

Post by pydry »

itsoktocry wrote: post #102
pydry wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The literal exact opposite happens. Journalists without a byline or with a shrunken byline have little incentive to build up a brand as a trustworthy and thorough reporter because they will derive no benefit from their reputation. When their bosses lean on them to produce crap to gin pageviews up just before bonus season they therefore produce crap. Media owners want this. They want journalism to be commodities becau…

> Journalists without a byline or with a shrunken byline have little incentive to build up a brand as a trustworthy and thorough reporter because they will derive no benefit from their reputation. Or...journalists without a byline have little incentive to "build up a brand" through by appealing to a "side" or sketchy reporting. It cuts both ways.

They are incentivized to do that anyways as their employers chase clicks and views so as to massage the bottom line. Taking away bylines won't make a dent.

Taking away bylines simply takes away the incentive to actually be different and stand out for something else.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#118

Post by atonse »

StevePerkins wrote: post #74

What a timely post. My subscription to "The Atlantic" is coming up for renewal in a few months, and I plan to simply let it lapse. That was my last magazine subscription left standing, and 2023 will be the first time in roughly 40 years that I won't be subscripting to any magazines. The writing has always been center-left, but with introspective tendencies. Articles would generally critique conservative political pos…

Are you me? Am I you? Couldn’t have said it better myself.

I tend to read authors instead of publications now.

Like just about anything by Ed Yong (science), Zeynep Tufekci, Katelyn Jetelina when looking at pandemic related topics. They are objective, thoughtful, compassionate, and well researched.

But slowly finding writers like that for other topics. Open to suggestions!

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#119

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #76
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, on Twitter Noah Smith has become a laughing stock. I will say that generally, non-print media like Substack, personal blogs and Twitter can be a much higher quality replacement. Requires a little digging though.

I've found the opposite. Print media publications seem to be higher quality with better editorial review. There are of course exceptions and outstanding blogs out there. I've seen some reporters go from working at a "big" publisher to Substack and I can tell the difference in their writing. Usually more extreme and alarmist. I chalk it up to less review.

I agree the individual pieces are less polished and tend more towards alarmism or outrage. I still find it overall better, because logical inconsistencies and wrong facts will get called out viciously and without mercy. The result is a more correct worldview, but one needs to keep some distance, otherwise it can get unhealthy.

Its the difference between a university debate club and an MMA cage. The MMA filter is much stronger, but there tends to be a lot more blood.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#120

Post by pydry »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #79

Could you give examples of how quality has declined? I'm scared if a rag like Jacobin is in the running. When people say that the quality of a publication has declined they often mean they disagree with things that are published. Many also say that they seek out blogs and other sources that I assume they agree with. I read these publications because I often disagree with their opinion pieces. It's a value add. Why wo…

Reading the piece on how github copilot will automate developers out of a job made me chuckle. The reporter knew fuck all about copilot or AI, clearly hadn't talked to a developer who did. It was essentially regurgitated, reconstituted investor pitch.

This is pretty standard. If I wanna know what investors or beltway insiders are excited about or afraid of I read the Economist to see what kind of kool aid they're drinking.

Post reply on HN