Many years ago, before there was so much news on the Internet, I used to subscribe to The Economist. It was kind of expensive for a magazine: it was about $150 a year if I remember correctly. I used to devour it every week, and considered it to be a highbrow, accurate and unbiased version of the news from a European perspective.
Now, I agree with you that it's just a rag full of drivel. Whenever I read The Economist now, I wonder, "did I change, or did The Economist change?"
The Economist is one of the few places that report international news, and specifically international news separate from 'here is how other nations are affected by US/European policies' which is the only story that tends to pop up in other publications
There are still biases of course. Friends from Asia used to joke that there are two kinds of news - American news and European news.
I'll agree that their headline stories are rarely insightful. They cover issues that have been talked about all over other media with a kind of snotty, holier-than-though attitude.
They had a recent headline on the 'illiberal left' which was the exact same pearl clutching that has appeared in every other media source about the intolerant leftist who shut down any voice that strays from the 'approved' story points.
I'm not even going to give an opinion on whether they are right or wrong, only that it is a tired story at this point. We hash it out once a week here on HN. There is nothing more to say.
> The Economist is one of the few places that report international news, and specifically international news separate from 'here is how other nations are affected by US/European policies' which is the only story that tends to pop up in other publications
Pre-www this was a really valuable thing, but international outlets are on the internet now. If you read it in the Economist, it's because they've got some ideological axe to grind.
The publication epitomizes the interests of those who they think are, "High brow." When I read the Economist, I often feel that they are citing past me to those who have Capital, those who legislate, those who might pull the strings of society.
Many years ago, before there was so much news on the Internet, I used to subscribe to The Economist. It was kind of expensive for a magazine: it was about $150 a year if I remember correctly. I used to devour it every week, and considered it to be a highbrow, accurate and unbiased version of the news from a European perspective.
Now, I agree with you that it's just a rag full of drivel. Whenever I read The Economist now, I wonder, "did I change, or did The Economist change?"