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

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#21

Post by ruddct »

I've been reading the Economist since I was a kid cutting charts out of it for school projects. I pay for their product happily, and they're a shining example of what I'd love to see more newspapers and magazines become. They have:

* A stated point of view

* A consistent, brief, often funny writing style

* An always interesting mix of big-picture stories and smaller trend pieces

* Almost all of their content in audio form

* Pretty good tech products/reading experiences

They're also one of the few periodicals that, when I read about something I'm pretty knowledgeable about, doesn't fall flat.

Of all the major periodicals out there, it seems to me that they're one of the better positioned ones.

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#22

Post by ruddct »

I've been reading the Economist since I was a kid cutting charts out of it for school projects. I pay for their product happily, and they're a shining example of what I'd love to see more newspapers and magazines become. They have:

* A stated point of view * A consistent, brief, often funny writing style * An always interesting mix of big-picture stories and smaller trend pieces * Almost all of their content in audio form * Pretty good tech products/reading experiences

They're also one of the few periodicals that, when I read about something I'm pretty knowledgeable about, doesn't fall flat.

Of all the major periodicals out there, it seems to me that they're one of the better positioned ones.

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#23

Post by coldtea »

nindalf wrote: post #17
coldtea wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simple: their audience is not the most sophisticated in international affairs, just a step up from the average newspaper or TV coverage. Now, THIS is real reporting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14153346

I've been reading the Economist for more than a decade and other publications as well in that time. They do an excellent job in my opinion of covering a variety of topics. Obviously reading specialized publications of each industry would give you a better idea, but a broad overview is great too. For example, here's an article from 2011, titled "Print me a Stradivarius" [1]. If you were already familiar with 3D printi…

>Side note, the last time I criticised a pithy, poorly researched put down by you, I was told off by a moderator. I wonder if someone could defend this comment as somehow adding value to this discussion.

It's my opinion about the Economist, and especially about their coverage of world affairs (which I explicitly mention in my comment). And I've been quite familiar with the domain, having worked with people covering world affairs for over a decade or so (for print and radio).

I don't like their neoliberal mantra of privatisation and deregulation, and I don't find their British foreign policy biases to allow for much integrity.

You might not like my comment. That said, I don't see how holding grudges, and carrying older "pithy, poorly researched put downs" on your shoulders, trying to finally "get back" at another commenter is any good. I don't even remember our discussion. Perhaps you could have just stated your opinion on the subject, instead of your opinion on fellow HNers?

The "pithy, poorly researched put down" could just as well have been just a true (or reasonable), but unpopular opinion. As a European, I don't have the most favorable views, nor share many viewpoints with the American HN audience. I don't particularly care for the "free market" either or other such things many are hot for -- which is one of the reasons I find the Economist shallow.

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#25

Post by germinalphrase »

tomjen3 wrote: post #19
shasheene wrote: post #15

I'd like to subscribe to The Economist, but a 12-month digital-only subscription costs US$285 from Australia, nearly double the US figure, which I can't yet justify as a relatively casual reader. The leaky paywall (and convenient scraped ePub versions for eReaders) makes it even easier to not contribute to funding quality journalism. If I could choose a dollar amount, I'd happily donate US$75/year recurring for what…

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.

NYTimes also requires you to make a phone call to cancel - though they were decidedly polite about it.

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#26

Post by hackermailman »

timdiggerm wrote: post #24
TorKlingberg wrote: post #10

When I subscribed to the Economist I liked that they have interesting reporting from all kinds of countries that are not currently topical.

I really enjoyed weekly updates on the Gambian election

I found the diaspora Gambian press much better, they were covering arrests of locals who "slandered the new president" and didn't promote the new guy as hard as the Economist was. The Economist also doesn't attach names to articles, so you have no idea who is writing them.

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#27

Post by scandox »

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.

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#28

Post by matt4077 »

coldtea wrote: post #23
nindalf wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been reading the Economist for more than a decade and other publications as well in that time. They do an excellent job in my opinion of covering a variety of topics. Obviously reading specialized publications of each industry would give you a better idea, but a broad overview is great too. For example, here's an article from 2011, titled "Print me a Stradivarius" [1]. If you were already familiar with 3D printi…

> Side note, the last time I criticised a pithy, poorly researched put down by you, I was told off by a moderator. I wonder if someone could defend this comment as somehow adding value to this discussion. It's my opinion about the Economist, and especially about their coverage of world affairs (which I explicitly mention in my comment). And I've been quite familiar with the domain, having worked with people covering…

You didn't insult the Economist, but their audience. And your point is simply factually wrong.

It's probably easy to find statistics on their readership showing they're far more educated and international than average. But I'll use a slightly more fun way to show it: it's the only medium I know that regularly has classifieds in the back selling whole airports in Gambia, refineries in Vietnam, or inviting applications to be the UN's High Commissioner for Complicated Negotiations regarding Time Zones in littoral Antarctica.

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#29

Post by conanbatt »

ruddct wrote: post #21

I've been reading the Economist since I was a kid cutting charts out of it for school projects. I pay for their product happily, and they're a shining example of what I'd love to see more newspapers and magazines become. They have: * A stated point of view * A consistent, brief, often funny writing style * An always interesting mix of big-picture stories and smaller trend pieces * Almost all of their content in audio…

I also find the economist to be one of the best. The articles it produces on Argentina are spot-on, which I always find amazing.

Re: How The Economist covers the world

#30

Post by coldtea »

matt4077 wrote: post #28
coldtea wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Side note, the last time I criticised a pithy, poorly researched put down by you, I was told off by a moderator. I wonder if someone could defend this comment as somehow adding value to this discussion. It's my opinion about the Economist, and especially about their coverage of world affairs (which I explicitly mention in my comment). And I've been quite familiar with the domain, having worked with people covering…

You didn't insult the Economist, but their audience. And your point is simply factually wrong. It's probably easy to find statistics on their readership showing they're far more educated and international than average. But I'll use a slightly more fun way to show it: it's the only medium I know that regularly has classifieds in the back selling whole airports in Gambia, refineries in Vietnam, or inviting applications…

>It's probably easy to find statistics on their readership showing they're far more educated and international than average.

That doesn't say much -- in fact the idea that these university degrees say anything of importance about the readership is totally contrary to how I view this, which would be much closer to the concept of the "intellectual yet idiot" (IYE) as proposed by Nassim Taleb (and similar ideas, put forward many more prominent thinkers through the last few centuries, e.g. the idea of the Philistine, or Flaubert's mockery of the educated middle class' "received ideas").

>But I'll use a slightly more fun way to show it: it's the only medium I know that regularly has classifieds in the back selling whole airports in Gambia, refineries in Vietnam, or inviting applications to be the UN's High Commissioner for Complicated Negotiations regarding Time Zones in littoral Antarctica.

Kind of makes my point. The ruling elites where never known for their intelligence -- but it's even less so in the 21st century (Trump anyone? Bush? Even Obama and Clinton are more mass media darlings than men of state the way someone like Churchill or De Gaulle was, with a knowledge of the world's intricacies and world history).

As I said, I'm not very much for received ideas and preconceived notions of what's worthy and what's intelligent. And degrees really don't tell me anything for this. Any idiot can have one (I should know, for I have one). Even more so, any idiot can have the money to buy a "refinery in Vietnam". It might take business savvy (if the money weren't inherited in the first place, or stolen from the public, e.g. by some corrupt public official), but that's not the same thing as someone understanding foreign affairs.

Post reply on HN