
How The Economist covers the world - sohkamyung
https://medium.economist.com/how-the-economist-covers-the-world-720b7e8060e8
======
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.

~~~
conanbatt
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.

------
davidhyde
I used to read The Economist and it made me feel very informed of the world
until one day I realized something. It came about because I happened to know a
lot of prior detail about the article I was reading about South Africa and
although I could not fault the facts listed and the depth of the article, the
end result was that it was just plain wrong. The shocking thing for me was
that if I didn't know more about the area then I would have been convinced
that I knew enough about the subject to form an informed opinion. I believe
the trick to their magazine is to create subjective (one sided) articles but
to give the impression that they are objective by offering up extensive
research. Kind of like a scientist who only publishes results that suit their
agenda. Those results may be accurate, detailed and impressive but that's not
the whole picture.

I want to know why the villains (people, corporations, governments) they
attack justify their actions. Give me a soup of conflicting ideas to ponder
instead of cherry picked truths.

If an author makes up my mind for me, I lose interest.

I would be a hypocrite if I didn't mention some good points about the
magazine. The writing style is superb and this may sound strange but I find
that my inner voice resonates with what I am reading. There are many writers
yet the magazine as a whole is very coherent and humor is used expertly to
liven up some dry topics.

So there you have it. Read it but don't forget that you're drinking their
Kool-Aid.

~~~
burkaman
What gave you the impression they want to be objective? The Economist is very
upfront about their bias and positions, more so than any major newspaper I can
think of. It's pretty common to see "this newspaper supports x" in an article
about a controversial issue. It shouldn't be your only news source, but
they've never pretended to be dedicated to objectivity like Reuters or
something.

~~~
diminish
As the GP said, especially if you know the topic well, Economist fails to
impress you with the sometimes "shaky" facts they embed to make a point. What
I don't like at Economist the most is the divine-like inner voice they are
using to report on a totally controversial area in a totally foreign topic and
choose a side as if it's very easy to choose sides. For example, you're a
banker reader in London, and they give you bundled, consumption-ready opinion
about why Mr X in LaLaLand is a better match for governing the fiscal politics
and not Ms Y.

It's as if they are ruling the world rather than doing journalism.

~~~
burkaman
My point is that I am intentionally paying for bundled, consumption-ready
opinions about the world. I have other news sources for more detailed "just
the facts" coverage of places and subjects I care about, but nobody has enough
time to keep up with the entire world at that level. The Economist gives me a
nice overview of world events from a well-defined, consistent, relatively
moderate viewpoint, and often covers topics that other "general interest" news
sources don't.

I completely understand that not everyone agrees with their views or likes
this style of journalism, I just disagree that there's any "trick" or false
advertising going on.

------
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.

~~~
k-mcgrady
Was the content their information led to bad? Your comment seems to be based
on your personal opinion of these persons rather than a critique of the
finished product.

~~~
scandox
I have a very high opinion of those persons! My comment is only intended to
give some idea of what the level is vis-a-vis their "intelligence" gathering
operations. Their investment in on the ground data gathering is not exactly
massive.

------
AndrewDP
Most interesting that The Economist, which has it's own substantial CMS web
presence, is using Medium to publish!

~~~
matt4077
This is kind of a meta-story, or even advertisement (although very good
advertisement). Publishing it in-between their usual content would raise a few
ethical questions.

It'd also be a bit useless to tell readers of the Economist how great they
are, and, as long as they can't get it printed in the NYT or similar, Medium
probably is the best place to reach their potential market.

~~~
saryant
They've written articles about themselves on their regular website before,
though under one of their blogs.

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-
explains/2013/09/ec...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-
explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-1)

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

~~~
timdiggerm
I really enjoyed weekly updates on the Gambian election

~~~
hackermailman
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.

------
shasheene
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 I'm
currently paying $0/year for.

~~~
tomjen3
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.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> I managed to get unsubscribed by hurling abuse at their support staff, but
I still think it should be considered fraud.

This paints you in a much worse light than them. I've cancelled with them
twice. I called and said 'I would like to cancel' and they refunded me what
was necessary. Took about 30 seconds - no abuse required.

~~~
tomjen3
I am not about to pay for an long-distance international call just over what
should be done with an internet form.

I grant you the abuse might not have been necessary, but I wanted results and
I wanted them yesterday.

------
ojbyrne
I've always found the answer to this to be - thinly, superficially, and with
poor dead prose.

I've never understood how they managed to cultivate the image they seem to
have created.

~~~
coldtea
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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14153346)

~~~
nindalf
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 printing, the article might have
struck you as elementary. But the vast majority of people don't work in tech,
especially not in hardware tech. Such people almost certainly would not have
heard of 3D printing in 2011, and learning about this would have been very
valuable.

What I appreciate about the Economist is their restraint in covering current
topics. A lot of their coverage is in-depth and subjects which _aren't_
topical. They aren't without flaws, but I've learnt a lot over the last decade
by reading the Economist.

[1] -
[http://www.economist.com/node/18114327](http://www.economist.com/node/18114327)

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.

~~~
coldtea
> _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.

~~~
matt4077
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.

~~~
coldtea
> _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.

~~~
jamespo
I fail to see how you have pulled Trump and Bush into this, are they both
subscribers?

~~~
coldtea
Conversations often expand from their narrow initial scope based upon the
received responses.

So, while this was about the Economist in general, the parent response
commented on how it "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." \-- as a way to show that the readership is especially
refined and/or intelligent.

My response to this was that the elites who might be interested in buying
"whole airports in Gambia" or be involved with the "UN's High Commissioner"
are not necessarily refined or knowledgable about world affairs much more than
the next person. Not even prominent politicians can be trusted to be nowadays
-- to which I used Trump and Bush as examples.

(That said, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were both subscribers too.
Many otherwise inane public figures are subscribers - I've met my share).

------
diminish
In the age of Medium and myriad kinds of blogging platforms and bloggers and
Twitter people to follow I see less need for that type of "opinion
journalism".

For most events in the world within minutes I m able to follow local people
tweeting or writing in their newspapers what's happening.

I rather feel Economist has an economic and political target remaining from
the days of the faded British Empire to comment about everything from
Commonwealth and ex-British Empire countries .

It's usually to promote a certain angle and push a position rather than
objectively investigate.

This "ad" is trying to benefit from post-Trump rise in newspaper subscriptions
with a "let's help independent media" wave. Which is a good attempt.

~~~
slyall
> For most events in the world within minutes I m able to follow local people
> tweeting or writing in their newspapers what's happening.

Like it says in the article they are not just writing about the stories that
are happening "this minute". They are writing about a range of other stuff,
ie:

 _But each week we try to give them a selection of things that they didn’t
know that they didn’t know. An example of this would be the recent piece we
ran on the spread of unfamiliar grains. You can also look at stories we’ve
done on the evolution of arranged marriage, on how to train good teachers or
on how best to integrate autistic people into the workplace. These are stories
about big ideas and big trends that readers might not know about_

------
samer66
This is a self propaganda piece from a magazine that has been a mixed bag,
decent and dumb journalism:" The Economist magazine is getting dumber and
dumber: it unearthed "evidence" of Russian intervention in Reagan's election
"In November 1984 the Kremlin tried to stop Ronald Reagan from being re-
elected. As part of its active-measures programme, Moscow promoted the slogan
“Reagan Means War!” To discredit him, Russia propagated stories about Reagan’s
militaristic adventurism, rising tensions among NATO allies, discrimination
against ethnic minorities and corruption." What? That those who opposed Reagan
around the world, and those who raised the plight of ethnic and racial
minorities in the US were doing the Russian bidding? And what is your evidence
of what "Moscow promoted". Let us put it this way, if this is the manner of
Russian intervention in US elections, it really is insignificant compared to
US heavy-handed intervention in elections in every country in the globe--
except Israel (and even there, Clinton tried to help the Labor Party).
[https://angryarab.blogspot.ae/2016/12/the-economist-
magazine...](https://angryarab.blogspot.ae/2016/12/the-economist-magazine-is-
getting.html?m=1)

~~~
simonh
No, they did not say that those doing what Russia wanted done were necessarily
doing it 'at Russia's bidding'. Yes America does also sometimes try to
influence political discourse in other countries too, did TE say otherwise?
Finally, are you claiming that Russia does not try to influence politics in
other countries? The point is, what methods are used and are they legitimate.

~~~
coldtea
> _Yes America does also sometimes try to influence political discourse in
> other countries too, did TE say otherwise?_

No, just let theirs readers get to that impression by themselves, by not
covering those attempts as much.

> _Finally, are you claiming that Russia does not try to influence politics in
> other countries?_

Not that much, mostly to their neighbors, and not very successfully even there
(e.g. how most of their periphery is not suffocating them with NATO allies).

