141–150 of 320 posts
Curious, have you tried to see where the authors of the articles you like before went? You can always follow them instead of following the publication. If they're still there, then perhaps it's a sign that it's management
E: It is basically a somewhat long list of newspapers and periodicals from across the world.
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.
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…
I think the biggest predictor of quality writing is the business model of the publication. Subscription based content is almost always superior. Anything that relies entirely on ad revenue is general hot garbage.
Bills itself as the next evolution of Economics and "Changes in economic thinking can change the world, for the better. That’s the core belief that inspires Evonomics"
Here's a story by Tim O'Reilly about Elon Musk:
Why Elon Musk Isn’t Superman : The Betting Economy vs. The Operating Economy
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?
IMHO it never makes sense to measure media's bias from right to left but it makes even less sense when the power center they represent is so obvious.
It's like arguing whether RT is conservative because they like Trump or liberal because they are skeptical of Israel. RT is simply pro Russia above all and will turn on a dime on any issue if it serves their core master.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-brexit-looks-like/ Just objectively that has turned out to be complete nonsense...
Any recommendation of a fair description of the impact of Brexit on the UK and why it's not desirable? Asking as an EU citizen who keeps hearing all day how much these Brits are struggling without the rest of us.
You might add https://www.spiegel.de/international/ to your list. It is free and well written. The good thing about Financial Times: It is a UK publisher, not US-based, so the reporting on the US is more skeptical and nuanced. Less screechy. To be fair, I avoid almost all of the opinion pieces except for Martin Wolf, because he is basically writing an economics column. The rest is rather inflammatory (much lower edit…
Than what? The Economist is UK based too.
The Economist tends to favor the US because the Economist supports liberal democracy and free trade worldwide. The Unites States is the only country who can and does defend those values. Europe cannot arm Ukraine against Putin. Japan cannot dispute China's claims rights to Taiwan or the ocean.
I am long-time fun of Economist, but unfortunately the quality decreases. E.g. last issue EU is frozen and claim so many people will die in Europe due to high energy prices. First, I find they did not explain their model well. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Second, the correlation does not imply causation or whether extrapolations are solid. It looks like there might be mistakes on that front an…
I haven't seen the article, but it's not a _completely_ outlandish idea; consumer energy prices are up a lot, and in countries where governments haven't taken step to subsidise and/or control energy costs, particularly for elderly people, you would expect deaths.
Now, in practice most countries _have_ taken such steps; if that was left out of the article that would certainly be a concern.