I have to confess, I'm a little stonkered by the discussion in the left blogosphere about whether they should subscribe to The Economist, or whether it is, like, the stupidest magazine ever. Obviously, having worked for the place for four years, and read it for many more, I'm somewhat partial. Nonetheless. There's something really sad about someone complaining that a magazine is terrible because it makes stupid people feel smart. Sad in part because working for The Economist is a good way to find out just how many actually brilliant and accomplished people read the magazine, and gush about it when they meet you. But also sad because it sounds like that third grade loser trying to get the cool kids back by saying "You don't even know short division!" People who are actually confident in themselves do not, in my experience, complain about dangerous reading materials giving the proles ideas above their station. Terrible, horrible, classically liberal ideas. Bad proles!
The Economist has its faults, but it is the best newsweekly in the English-speaking world. Many of its critics, I observe from long experience, applied considerably looser standards of accuracy to publications that agree with them than they expected from us. Journalists are not experts; and especially at a magazine, which can't stick three people in Ulan Bator, they will never have as much grasp of nearly any issue as the academic experts.
Luckily, that isn't their job. Saying "the more I know about a subject, the less wonderful they seem" is not a devastating critique of The Economist--it is a fact about every single publication, and nearly every journalist (I exclude foreign correspondents who become experts on remote conflicts that no other speaker of their language has covered.) Anything that you're an actual expert on will seem hopelessly muddled as rendered by a journalist, because we spend our lives trying to explain complicated things in very few words to an audience that has virtually no background in the subject. It's just that when the publication agrees with you, you figure they got it generally right, so you give them a pass on all the simplifications. And if you don't believe me, I suggest that you go to your favorite publication and offer to spend a week editing the letters to the editor.
I love the Economist, especially its science coverage, and I have a Ph.D. in physics. In fact, I'm designing a course that will include articles from the Economist among the assigned readings.
"Ideology masquerading as journalism."
I read it until I just couldn't stand their ceaseless Bush apologism. Ugh.
^That is the thing I love about the Economist.
They have an ideology "Classical Liberalism" and approach stories from that world view. They admit to as much. Within this world view I find them to be pragmatic and empirical. I also like how they address criticisms to thier own position seriously.
I much prefer that approach to a veneer of impartiality covering an unstated (and sometimes subconcious) world view that equally colors reporting but is not nearly as open.
^That is the thing I love about the Economist.
They have an ideology "Classical Liberalism" and approach stories from that world view. They admit to as much. Within this world view I find them to be pragmatic and empirical. I also like how they address criticisms to thier own position seriously.
I much prefer that approach to a veneer of impartiality covering an unstated (and sometimes subconcious) world view that equally colors reporting but is not nearly as open.
"Anything that you're an actual expert on will seem hopelessly muddled as rendered by a journalist, because we spend our lives trying to explain complicated things in very few words to an audience that has virtually no background in the subject."
While this is true for you, its not true for skilled journalists.
Look at Matt Yglesias. He's an expert on reducing complex foreign policy options into succinct points. Thats because he knows his subject. Many scholars and experts respect journalists who accurately publicize their research in succinct and digestible nuggets. Some scholars actually write pieces qua journalists! WOWZA!
Stop defining your profession down so you feel included.
The Economist: British
I enjoy reading the Economist because I feel the need to read something other than American writers.
In addition to needing a thinking cap on while reading their publication, you need a British thinking cap.
I dont like the way things, so frequently, end with a thud.
Stop defining your profession down so you feel included.
Well, if I were ever asked to define the term "asshole", I'd be sure it had adequate breadth to include you, Rickm.
He's an expert on reducing complex foreign policy options into succinct points.
Do you suppose that a real expert on foreign policy who disagreed with MY would agree that his "succinct points" were accurate distillations of the quesitons? Or would said expert prefer a different set of succinct points, and regard MY's as a muddle?
As our gracious hostess says, a simplified journalistic account always looks good when you agree with it.
Saying "the more I know about a subject, the less wonderful they seem" is not a devastating critique of The Economist--it is a fact about every single publication, and nearly every journalist
No Megan it is not a fact about every single publication. The criticism I made in another post about The Economist's purported knowledge is not something I would say about the WSJ or FT. The latter two report news. The Economist comes to financial news with a viewpoint and has a tendency to shoehorn the news into that framework. Maybe that's just a difference between a daily and a weekly: perhaps what one reads in the former is much closer to what the reporter wrote than it is in the latter, where [at some publications] various levels of editors have freedom to twist it.
I do sometimes read The Economist, though I would never pay for it. I even distribute some of its articles to my students, because sometimes the articles are excellent. I also do the same with The Nation. And I'm always conscious when I read both that there is an agenda behind what is being reported and how it is being presented.
The Economist always reminds me of my rich aunt. She was born into money and sort of always believed she had earned it. She turned up her nose at poor people and considered them rif-raf even when they were educated. She didn't have much tolerance for differing world views so everybody just shut up when she was talking. I always hear her voice when I read the magazine for some reason. Especially when they talk about those zany third worlders.
the discussion in the left blogosphere about whether they should subscribe to The Economist
That is quite a compliment to The Economist.
People are usually reluctant to read publications that disagree with them. You do not see analogous discussions about the New Statesman or the Spectator...
And here I was beginning to think that The Economist was becoming anti-American. I mean, it has been advocating to the world to "de-couple" their economies from their ties to the American. It was actually beaming at the "demise" of American economic power. Interestingly, a few weeks ago while watching a Bloomberg reporter interview some gurus from Singapore, Hong Kong and India on the ripple effect of American economic turbulence each one dismissed even the concept of "de-coupling". None believed it was even remotely possible and one even called "a fantasy being perpetuated by the Economist". However, like a bad habit I just can't bring myself to cancel my longstanding subscription to it. Addicted I seem to be, I suppose.
I stopped reading it twenty years ago. Does it still claim to be omniscient?
I completely agree, the Economist is the best English-language newsweekly. Unlike most news sources, the Economist assumes the reader has basic competence in statistics. On that basis alone, it is already vastly superior in the clarity and precision of its articles.
Additionally, it refrains from using anecdote, except for humorous illustration, and maintains a detached tone for even the most contentious topics. This make the Economist enjoyable to read, even if I disagree with ideology.
To the above detractors:
MM is asserting the magazine as the best in its class. If you disagree with that statement, what do you posit as the substitute?
I second the post about the science coverage.
It is the ONLY general audience newspaper or magazine where I even trust the science section. On most others (even reference publications), more often than not the issue is mungled and the journalist misunderstood the underlying paper.
"Anything that you're an actual expert on will seem hopelessly muddled as rendered by a journalist, because we spend our lives trying to explain complicated things in very few words to an audience that has virtually no background in the subject."
I agree with the tenor of that statement, but I think it is false as it reads. It may seem "hopelessly muddled" because the journalist doesn't fully grasp what he is writing about, not because he "trying to explain complicated things in very few words to an audience that has virtually no background in the subject."
But I am willing to give journalists a free pass on this matter, which is why I agree with the tenor. I wouldn't expect the journalist to be as knowledgeable as I am in what I have spent all day, every day doing for years. I guess we're just splittin' hairs here, but I'm just sayin'...
I have found that the Economist's quality has gone in the past few years. I can't quite put my finger on why.
Its funny that those on the Left are wondering about subscribing to the Economist, because the Economist has definitely started leaning left in recent years, and is not always classically liberal. They seem to be more and more for socialized healthcare in the USA and didn't they endorse Kerry over Bush? Maybe the magazine leans left just enough to make it moderate centrist which is not enough for the lefties?
I think they would have endorsed Obama as well, BTW, but that may change after the recent information that has come to light. We'll see.
Oh, and my feeling about the quality is not related to the political change. It just seems like the stories are not as informative. Another friend of mine, a lefty, said the same and cancelled his subscription.
I have kept mine until I find a better replacement.