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

251–260 of 320 posts

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#251

Post by musk_micropenis »

flycaliguy wrote: post #220
mechanical_bear wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree with OP. Quality declined, I cancelled my subscription.

The exercise that was cancelling, including being hung up on twice during the process, is why I’d never go back.

I vehemently disagree with the "Economist has declined" crowd but I had to unsubscribe one time for financial reasons a few years ago and the difficulty in unsubscribing is why I will never subscribe again. I had to call a number in Singapore (where I did not live) and wait on hold for a long time.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#252

Post by wpietri »

Manuel_D wrote: post #241
wpietri wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. We live in an age of asymmetric polarization. XKCD has a good rendering of the DW-NOMINATE data. Look especially at the US House since Reagan: https://xkcd.com/1127/ The right has moved far more than the left. Just looking at today's news, we find a prominent right-wing activist was convicted of plotting to overthrow the government: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63802649 The only area I think you coul…

More reputable sources find that polarization is largely symmetrical: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/section-1-gr...

That is not a more reputable source. The XKCD thing is a graph of highly regarded and more rigorous social science work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOMINATE_(scaling_method)

Further, I think the Pew stuff is flawed in a number of ways. One, it comes after the Reagan era, missing a time DW-NOMINATE shows as important to right-wing polarization. Two, it doesn't include the Trump era, when polarization hugely spiked. Third, and most important, 9 out of the 10 questions are not suited for directly measuring ideology. The one I think is actually a decent measure of ideology is "Homosexuality should be discouraged by society" vs "Homosexuality should be accepted by society". The rest of them are practical questions relative to the circumstances of the day. E.g., "The government today can't afford to do much more to help the needy" is a question that's explicitly about the current state of the budget. If the budget improves, then more people should answer that as yes regardless of ideology.

The measure I'd rather see is the extent of ideological litmus tests for access to power. E.g., look at the way the right's orthodoxy on abortion has hardened over the years. In the 1970s it was possible to be a pro-choice Republican and a pro-choice evangelical Christian. Now neither is acceptable, so much so that the most prominent Republican pro-choice group just gave up a few years back: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/opinion/abortion-rights-r...

Or you could look at the way large portions of the Republican party have polarized around things that are provably false, like that Trump won the 2020 election, that January 6th was a left-wing false flag, or that ivermetcin is a good way to treat covid. That is wildly asymmetrical polarization, and it drove litmus tests for Republican candidates across the country. Nothing similar exists on the left.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#253

Post by Aromasin »

williamcotton wrote: post #84
Aromasin wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way they discuss the UK/EU dynamic rankles me. They spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about Europe, while talking about the UK as if it's on the cusp of a new age. I also loathe their coverage of the UK budget. It's a personally belief that George Osbourne's tenure in government has single-handedly sent the UK in a seemingly bottomless downward spiral back into 1970's Britain. He delivered his budget…

I should have added “in the last year” to make it explicit that I was directly responding to OP when they said they had noticed a shift “in the last year”. I haven’t noticed this shift! The shift I did notice was when Zanny took over as editor-in-chief a few years back.

That's sort of my point. It's something I've noticed in articles in the past year or so. This ballet around sticking to their free market principles, while also distancing themselves from discussing the matter when it fails. Looking through older issues, I can spot a few where they've gone "we got it wrong, this is what position we will take this time". There's a distinct lack of ownership in recent ones.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#254

Post by wpietri »

nescioquid wrote: post #245
wpietri wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. We live in an age of asymmetric polarization. XKCD has a good rendering of the DW-NOMINATE data. Look especially at the US House since Reagan: https://xkcd.com/1127/ The right has moved far more than the left. Just looking at today's news, we find a prominent right-wing activist was convicted of plotting to overthrow the government: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63802649 The only area I think you coul…

The Democratic party deliberately moved right under Clinton. What was at the time called "triangulation" was Clinton adopting republican policy positions and one-upping them (e.g. welfare reform, NAFTA, Glass-Steagall). This drove the republicans crazy (remember Gingrich's Contract with America) and ever further right.

Agreed. And a later example is how the Affordable Care Act is essentially a Republican idea. But it's wild to think "they agreed with us too much" is seen as a plausible reason for radicalization.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#255

Post by wpietri »

Manuel_D wrote: post #239
wpietri wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true that I disagree with some of the right-wing framings, but I don't object on that account. I've never entirely agreed with The Economist, but that hasn't kept me from enjoying it and finding it useful. But the US right has from my perspective gone insane. Take as an example the belief that Trump won the 2020 election. A majority of Republicans (and only Republicans, not independents, Democrats, or people ou…

The Economist has repeatedly and emphatically rejected the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. I'm really not seeing any "crazy leak in". Pretty much all "crazy" views I can think of the Economist rejects vigorously.

Then it's a good thing I didn't claim the Economist agreed with the Big Lie.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#256

Post by jhbadger »

Manuel_D wrote: post #239
wpietri wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true that I disagree with some of the right-wing framings, but I don't object on that account. I've never entirely agreed with The Economist, but that hasn't kept me from enjoying it and finding it useful. But the US right has from my perspective gone insane. Take as an example the belief that Trump won the 2020 election. A majority of Republicans (and only Republicans, not independents, Democrats, or people ou…

The Economist has repeatedly and emphatically rejected the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. I'm really not seeing any "crazy leak in". Pretty much all "crazy" views I can think of the Economist rejects vigorously.

And it absolutely accepts that climate change is real, human caused, and needs to be addressed, which at least in the US is not the standard right-wing opinion.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#257

Post by musk_micropenis »

wpietri wrote: post #231
tekla wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> heir "by invitation" pieces are by nature platforming people and avoiding most of their editorial standards. > I also see right-wing framings creeping into pieces more often than before. There we go, you think its worse because it doesn't 100% cater to your views.

It is true that I disagree with some of the right-wing framings, but I don't object on that account. I've never entirely agreed with The Economist, but that hasn't kept me from enjoying it and finding it useful. But the US right has from my perspective gone insane. Take as an example the belief that Trump won the 2020 election. A majority of Republicans (and only Republicans, not independents, Democrats, or people ou…

> And unfortunately, it's not confined to the US. From Boris Johnson to Jair Bolsonaro to Viktor Orban and well beyond, there are a lot of politicians on the right who you can't really call conservative in that they, like Trump, have repudiated a lot of traditional conservative values like honesty, accuracy, and integrity.

> My problem is that the Economist, whose tone for me has always been one of cool reason, whose founding goal was "to take part in 'a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress,'" is letting the crazy leak in.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. It honestly makes me wonder if you've actually read The Economist in the past 7 years.

The Economist is very critical of Boris Johnson - their latest articles on him include "The tragedy of Boris Johnson", "Boris Johnson should go immediately" and "Clownfall: Britain after Boris".

Recent pieces on Jair Bolsonaro include "The enduring threat of Jair Bolsonaro", "Win or lose, Jair Bolsonaro poses a threat to Brazilian democracy" and "President Jair Bolsonaro is bad for Brazil's economy".

On Viktor Orban they say "Viktor Orban's victory is a triumph for illiberal nationalism", "How Viktor Orban hollowed out Hungary's democracy".

On Trump I won't even begin. Almost no publication has been more harshly critical of Trump.

So your claim that The Economist is determined to "both-sides" every discussion doesn't hold any water at all to me. The Economist has always had an open and transparent editorial position and they write to that position. They are not interested in promoting the views of extremists or crazies on either side. If you have such an example I would be keen to hear it.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#258

Post by scythe »

biophysboy wrote: post #208
scythe wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I noticed about The Economist is that every so often they'll bring up some interesting criticism of a widely held view. Then a few days later they'll publish an article vigorously supporting the Current Thing. A particularly obvious example was when they had a column about Ukraine from John Mearshimer, and the various follow-ups. They also ran that takedown of Mohammed bin Salman but periodically tout the u…

This is an interesting perspective. Is it harder to maintain these relationships now than before? If so, why?

I'm no expert on the topic, but anyone in a position of influence has a lot more options for communicating with the public than they did a few decades ago. Leaks from SCOTUS were unimaginable in the 20th century, for example. Under the usual supply-demand assumptions, that means that any particular journalist has a lot less power in the relationship.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to The Economist?

#260

Post by infamia »

wpietri wrote: post #231
tekla wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> heir "by invitation" pieces are by nature platforming people and avoiding most of their editorial standards. > I also see right-wing framings creeping into pieces more often than before. There we go, you think its worse because it doesn't 100% cater to your views.

It is true that I disagree with some of the right-wing framings, but I don't object on that account. I've never entirely agreed with The Economist, but that hasn't kept me from enjoying it and finding it useful. But the US right has from my perspective gone insane. Take as an example the belief that Trump won the 2020 election. A majority of Republicans (and only Republicans, not independents, Democrats, or people ou…

> But the US right has from my perspective gone insane. Take as an example the belief that Trump won the 2020 election. A majority of Republicans (and only Republicans, not independents, Democrats, or people outside the US) believe that Joe Biden did not legitimately win: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/07/republica...

I think both parties have gone insane and have been there for many years. The US system has been unbalanced and wobbly for years. While the problem is much worse on the right as of late, the corrosion of our electoral system is strong and alive on the left as well. The incoming House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries repeatedly said that the election was stolen by Trump and that his presidency is illegitimate. [0] Honestly, this tweet written by Jeffries reads exactly like an unhinged Trump Twitter rant. [1] The claims that the election was stolen was repeated publicly by Hillary Clinton, then the defacto leader of the party. Going further back, there are Democrats who still say that the election was stolen from Al Gore, which is a ridiculous claim. To be clear, Trump takes these assaults on our democratic institutions to an entirely different level and breadth, but let's look at this from both sides instead of asserting that it's just one side.

[0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/election-denier-hake...

[1] https://twitter.com/RepJeffries/status/964581721088897025?s=...

Post reply on HN