For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes • Hacker News Board

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#101

Post by Marazan » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 8:55 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #87

jazzyk wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not put the NYT in the same league as The Economist. The NYT used to be a quality publication, but recently has been going down hill, fast (recent fiasco with quickly edited extremely one-sided article on Ellen Pao's verdict, etc) I have been a subscriber to The Economist for 25 years now, and while I don't always agree with their opinions, their articles are unquestionably well researched - and beautifully w…

The job the Times has is at least an order of magnitude harder than the Economist . I enjoy reading the Economist , but I don't know if I'd say well researched. A few times I've come across articles in my own field that seem really off, which makes me uneasy about the articles on banana plantations in Uruguay. AFAIK the gold standard in copy editing and fact checking is the New Yorker .

The Economist has a writing style where they present the 'facts' that make their case but never state the uncertainty over those facts. It makes their articles look really persuasive until you do your own research at which point they look really, really shaky.

EDIT: That said I do have a subscription to them.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#102

Post by lispm » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 8:56 PM UTC

osipovas wrote: post #10

My life has changed for the better since subscribing to the Economist in 2011. For me, it's not about paying for content (which is great) but for the 'feeling of being informed'. After reading each issue I feel informed about what is going on around the world. This has sparked many conversations with people from around the world. I hope that following this transition that 'feeling of being informed' will not go away…

Informed about the neo-liberal point of view.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#103

Post by CamperBob2 » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 8:58 PM UTC

selectodude wrote: post #99

CamperBob2 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing it with some other publication, I'm guessing.

You know the Economist is a pretty good publication when people can't decide if it's a far-left or far right mouthpiece.

Agreed, that's where they want to be, I think.

But they're definitely more in tune with the Austrian school than with the Keynesians or the Krugmanites. Calling it a "left-wing weekly" is pretty questionable.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#104

Post by atmosx » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 8:58 PM UTC

gcv wrote: post #97

atmosx wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a subscriber for 4 years and I can confirm that the Economist is crap. It looks good compared to other choices like 'Times' or 'Newsweek' which are totally unreadable. * It has totally absurd double-standards: Russia, Iran, China and their puppets (e.g. Syria and so forth) are 'bad' and 'evil'. US, EU and the UK stand for 'justice and peace in the world'. If your world-view is so naive, then you deserve the eco…

Your comment simply says that your politics don't align with The Economist's. I personally find the "he said, she said" style of reporting that purports to give a fair account of all sides intolerable and hypocritical. It often allows complete idiots to air their opinions in the name of presenting a "different" view. This lets the reporter subtly influence the reader while preserving the illusion of impartiality. The…

> It often allows complete idiots to air their opinions in the name of presenting a "different" view.

There, you just described the economist.

Okay, jokes apart... My 'problem' is that most mainstream media, doesn't consider the economist biased. I didn't consider the economist biased in the past. When I did, I stopped my subscription because it had nothing to offer: I knew beforehand what am I going to read on (almost) any given situation.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#105

Post by icebraining » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 9:03 PM UTC

eevilspock wrote: post #91

icebraining wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say you overestimate the number of people working on ad-supported software. Many, if not most of us are working on for-pay software and services. The reason I'm ambivalent about ads is not because it funds my paycheck (it doesn't, we charge for our services), but because for all their evils, ads work as a kind of enforced redistribution mechanism, and since geographic adjustments of prices work poorly on the web,…

Imagine a world, pre-internet, where almost all books are handed out free, but with their pages loaded with ads, and their stories embedded with "native" ads and product placements. Imagine that book "stores" get a cut of the ad revenue and so are incented to stock and push whatever book titles "clicked" the most and contained the most ads? Authors in this world would say they have no choice, because readers will alw…

And in that world, I would have been able to read a lot of books that I wish I could have when I was growing up, when I only got 3-4 books per year, plus access to a poorly stocked library.

Would I have traded? Yes, I probably would have.

---

I also don't agree that one must oppose all advertising or none; we can oppose native ads and personal tracking without being necessarily opposed to well demarcated side ads.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#106

Post by Marazan » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 9:09 PM UTC

gcv wrote: post #97

atmosx wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a subscriber for 4 years and I can confirm that the Economist is crap. It looks good compared to other choices like 'Times' or 'Newsweek' which are totally unreadable. * It has totally absurd double-standards: Russia, Iran, China and their puppets (e.g. Syria and so forth) are 'bad' and 'evil'. US, EU and the UK stand for 'justice and peace in the world'. If your world-view is so naive, then you deserve the eco…

Your comment simply says that your politics don't align with The Economist's. I personally find the "he said, she said" style of reporting that purports to give a fair account of all sides intolerable and hypocritical. It often allows complete idiots to air their opinions in the name of presenting a "different" view. This lets the reporter subtly influence the reader while preserving the illusion of impartiality. The…

My main complaint with the Economist (as a subscriber) is that it doesn't display it's biases openly - it often presents controversial economic or social positions as settled fact in a neutral style. If you didn't know the subject it was writing on you would think they were presenting the orthodox position.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#107

Post by NearAP » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 9:09 PM UTC

mdekkers wrote: post #49

Ollinson wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I subscribed to the economist sometime in the middle of 2012 and did not have a positive experience. I'm convinced that much of the allure of the economist comes from that it is frank contrarian news source. I don't like the anonymous authorship for reasons which have been stated on hacker news in other economist posts. The economist is sneaky. All of the articles are fact/numbers based and then shoehorned with a pol…

I was subscribed to the economist for several years, and unsubscribed once I figured out that much of their content on non-western countries is either heavily tinted, or outright false.

This year, I read an article in The Economist where they endorsed the opposition candidate (Buhari) for the upcoming Presidential election in Nigeria. The article stated that Buhari had thrice contested before and lost the presidential elections and each time accepted the verdict. But that turned out to be false (and the comments in the article said so but Economist did not update the article). Each time Buhari lost the election, he challenged the results (as he had a right to) all the way to the Supreme Court.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#108

Post by ConfuciusSay » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

antr wrote: post #41

felixgallo wrote: post #37

The Economist has swung increasingly right-wing in its editorial stances and even editing over the last several years. It will be interesting to see if this change has any impact either way.

As a subscriber of the economist since 2003, I'm curious to know which articles and views you are referring to. If anything, the Economist is one of the most (if not the most) balanced magazine I've ever come across.

To me it's their pro-every-war stance. Especially Syria. Did we not learn any lesson from Iraq?

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#109

Post by CamperBob2 » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 9:14 PM UTC

ConfuciusSay wrote: post #108

antr wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a subscriber of the economist since 2003, I'm curious to know which articles and views you are referring to. If anything, the Economist is one of the most (if not the most) balanced magazine I've ever come across.

To me it's their pro-every-war stance. Especially Syria. Did we not learn any lesson from Iraq?

Wars:newspapers :: batteries:flashlights. It's always been that way.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#110

Post by gcv » Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 9:15 PM UTC

Marazan wrote: post #106

gcv wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment simply says that your politics don't align with The Economist's. I personally find the "he said, she said" style of reporting that purports to give a fair account of all sides intolerable and hypocritical. It often allows complete idiots to air their opinions in the name of presenting a "different" view. This lets the reporter subtly influence the reader while preserving the illusion of impartiality. The…

My main complaint with the Economist (as a subscriber) is that it doesn't display it's biases openly - it often presents controversial economic or social positions as settled fact in a neutral style. If you didn't know the subject it was writing on you would think they were presenting the orthodox position.

If you didn't catch The Economist's biases on a cursory reading of one issue, that's on you. Simply skimming one of the leader opinion pieces and comparing it to, e.g., a Krugman column, should tell you that the authors would come to blows.

Besides, what is an "orthodox" position? Whose?