Comment by avazhi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by avazhi | Hacker News Reader

Apologies for what is basically off-topic hijacking, but I've been a reader of the Economist since ~2005, when I was a uni student the first time. I've got pretty diverse political views, but neither Dems nor Republicans would claim me as their own, nor indeed would anarchists, fascists, or just about anybody else. I suppose I'd be classified as an independent, but the point is just that over the past 2-3 years the Economist has basically become unreadable for me, not necessarily because I find their political views increasingly obnoxious (which I do), but because it seems like their views have become simplistic to the point of being naive - their recent pieces on Putin and Ukraine being Exhibit A in this regard. Didn't The Economist used to have deep, or at the very least DEEPER analysis than they now offer? Just wondering if anybody else feels the same way and has found anything else that works for them. The closest thing for me has been Foreign Affairs, but of course along with very deep analysis on foreign policy is the fact that oftentimes one is reading a very biased opinion from a career civil servant (notwithstanding that the articles are invariably well written and well argued). One might even argue that knowing the writer is biased makes for more interesting reading because you're constantly questioning their claims; reading the Economist, as the saying used to go, was like hearing declarative statements from God. The Financial Times and WSJ are both too 'shallow' and financially focussed for what I'm talking about - if I just want headlines and news synopses then any of the NYT, the WSJ, and WashPo will do, but I'm talking about consistently in-depth discussions and analysis of current issues.

Any ideas are very welcome!

I feel you.

I have been a subscriber for the past 20 years. Before I go further, I would argue my consumption model has changed even more than The Economist has changed. My consumption model has changed because the sources of deep and specialist coverage have increased. FWIW, I still find The Economist immerse-worthy, and I do enjoy it a lot. I have, however, increased my signal sources by subscribing to Financial Times, The Information, etc.

I like the long form articles produced 1843, a sister brand of The Economist.

All said and done, you and I probably are getting older, more cynical and The Economist is one in a long list of casualties :).

Agreed about 1843, but it seems rare that they've got a proper longform article these days - or maybe they do but none of them are interesting to me.

Speaking of longform, I use Longform.org almost daily and just noticed that they're shutting down, or at least they're no longer aggregating articles. Wonder what happened.

I used to read the Economist and likewise gave it up in 2021 due to the creeping politicisation and simplification of their coverage. I think this is representative of a larger illness that is pervading Western journalism, an ideological illness that has journalists viewing themselves as school marms of the hoi polloi rather than reporters and analysts of fact.

My suggestion is to peruse smart political magazines from a diversity of sources. Four I can recommend for this purpose are

https://jacobinmag.com ("democratic socialist" a la Sanders. Critical of the Democrats from the left. Frequently critiques establishment policies on numerous issues, occasionally including foreign policy.)

https://www.tabletmag.com (Jewish conservative magazine. A useful balance to my other selections in that it is Zionist.)

https://www.theamericanconservative.com (This magazine is one of the few smart conservative publications. It is critical of Republican interventionist foreign policy and free trade ideology. It is very culturally conservative.)

https://unherd.com (This British magazine doesn't have a specific orientation. It leans slightly cultural conservative, but doesn't have a big bias on other issues in my view, and even on cultural topics it publishes feminist viewpoints.)

And then, since these magazines are all fairly contra-establishment, you can wash down their flaming hot takes with a nice glass of neoliberal apologetics, by simply visiting any other newspaper of magazine, and viewing either the headlines or the opinion section--they are pretty much indistinguishable at this point anyway.

Thanks for these. Tablet and Unherd both seem interesting, though perhaps a bit more 'bloglike' and less journalistic than I'd prefer - even The American Conservative had an interesting, albeit short, article about white farmers. Obviously quite partisan though. Your tactic seems to be to collect a diverse array of opinions, whereas I'm a bit more closed minded - I'd rather find an outlet I agree with on most things, or least whose reasoning I agree with and follow, and then just stick to them.

I'd wager that you simply outgrew The Economist. They have remarkable message discipline. After 15 years, you are probably ready for some new slogans.

I dropped The Economist over their support for Bush's Folly in Iraq. I do miss some of the quarterly focused single topic issues. Sometimes. Oh well.

Thing is, even their science quarterlies have badly missed the mark recently. I remember a few years ago they had some in-depth articles on biology about genes and evolution and the explanations were both unnecessarily difficult and in some cases outright wrong, both of which are the opposite of what the Economist is known for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com