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.
I think the pro-free-trade, anti-regulation, anti-union, and anti-populist sentiment used to be limited to the 'leaders' or specific editorials; since ~2006 it has become much more common in the content articles. I think it's 1) more balanced than most 2) still not very balanced and 3) easy enough to sort out the facts from the liberal (in the global sense of the word) triumphalism.
For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes
81–90 of 151 posts
Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes
#82The Economist is a prime example of how for-pay curated content can work and can work well to serve a market... a wide market. Can you imagine, just imagine, how craptastic The Economist would be if it were "free" and all you had to do was endure curated advertisements? PS I would pay extra if they would stop stapling in those cardboard subscription cards in the middle of the (print) issue. PPS I feel the same way ab…
I'm starting to sour a bit on NYT. I do feel that The New Yorker and London Review of Books are both very good examples, however - paid content that is very, very well done and worthwhile.
Also McSweeneys and The Believer.
Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economist is the only publication i pay for. I'm not sure how many newspapers/magazines could really follow suit. There is only so many high quality sources anyone can read, its a small niche I think. Also the average economist reader is probably quite high on income so I suspect thats a skews their ability to charge
One thing I enjoy about it is the audio edition. It is done well and allows me to enjoy the Economist on the go without sinking too much time into it.
Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes
#84Speaking of The Economist, is anyone else getting a ridiculous amount of third party spam pushing The Economist subscriptions? I'm getting several a day, typically from domains in the new TLDs, such as .date, .science, .faith, and .review. The domain names match the IP addresses, have SPF records that check out, and they body doesn't have any of the usual things that make it look like spam, and so Spamassassin is mar…
Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
I coincidentally also subscribed to the Economist in 2011 and I can relate to the feeling of being informed. However I had to cancel my subscription in 2013 for lack of time. After a while, I could never finish an issue. To be honest I have regretted my decision and I now feed on lesser quality news from "free" sources. It really is a great publication but I couldn't justify the spending or the piling up of issues. I…
I did the same - subscribed in 2007 and cancelled it in 2012. And I am here in minority but I cancelled it BECAUSE of its content. The barrage of anti China news, anti India news, and then the lack of any standing on any issue except free market. Economist consistently backtracks on everything if it somehow results in more free market. It is why it was established in the first place so why complain? The height was wh…
Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes
#86> Pearson, the owner of the Financial Times, which has had a non-controlling 50% stake in us since 1928, is selling. Three-fifths of those shares will go to an existing shareholder—Exor, the holding company of the Agnelli family. The rest will be bought back by our parent company, The Economist Group. Phew, I was really worried they were selling to News Corp or something when I saw the headline. I've often thought of…
What's wrong with News Corp?
Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes
#87The Economist is a prime example of how for-pay curated content can work and can work well to serve a market... a wide market. Can you imagine, just imagine, how craptastic The Economist would be if it were "free" and all you had to do was endure curated advertisements? PS I would pay extra if they would stop stapling in those cardboard subscription cards in the middle of the (print) issue. PPS I feel the same way ab…
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…
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.
Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes
#88When I read about topics in which I have first hand experience, I feel The Economist does an excellent job of portraying the facts and different perspectives. This almost never happens in any mainstream media, especially regarding technology and trading. Therefore, I trust The Economist on topics in which I don't have first hand experience. They rarely let me down. I hope this continues and it seems they believe it w…
Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes
#89The Economist is a prime example of how for-pay curated content can work and can work well to serve a market... a wide market. Can you imagine, just imagine, how craptastic The Economist would be if it were "free" and all you had to do was endure curated advertisements? PS I would pay extra if they would stop stapling in those cardboard subscription cards in the middle of the (print) issue. PPS I feel the same way ab…
Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes
#90I thought it was interesting that they mentioned they have 10M twitter followers compared to 5.6M Facebook fans - interesting given Facebook has 5x the MAU of twitter.
Important people use Twitter. Teens and grandmothers use Facebook.