The Economist: Opinions?

[1Q84]

I'm looking at signing up for a student subscription to the iPad app version of the Economist. It's $90 for a year ($1.76 an issue!)

 

Anyone have a subscription and love or hate it? Anyone recommend another magazine subscription in lieu of the Economist?

 

Thanks!

[booksnlooks]

I had a subscription to The Economist for two years and I absolutely loved it. Wide variety of interesting topics and it keeps you current on economics, politics, and business.

The only reason I didn't renew the subscription for this year is because I no longer have the time to read it cover to cover like I used to and I could use the money elsewhere.

[Usmivka]

The new york times has an academic rate that is similar if you prefer a wider range of topics.

[1Q84]

Thanks for the replies!

 

What are the particular political slants of both paper/magazines? I heard that the Economist is rather balanced but somehow I have a hard time believing that.

[iowaguy]

Economist is best for an international view, IMHO.  Excellent coverage of developments going on around the world...  New York Times has more of a liberal slant and is more focused on U.S. events (although more international than most U.S. newspapers).  I personally read both.  If I could only choose one it would be the Economist.

[wildviolet]

I'm taking a class with our department chair this semester (who is well-known in the field), and she assigned us an article from the Economist last week as a look at research from perspectives outside our field. So, yeah, I think it's a good deal, especially at $1.76 an issue. To put it in perspective, I pay more for a cup of coffee! (I know, I need to get off my lazy a** and make my own instead of always buying it at the cafe).

[Usmivka]

First, they are different kinds of publications. The Economist is a weekly with primarily analysis and opinion, the NYTimes is daily newspaper with primarily current events with a small amount of opinion/analysis.

 

The Economist is a UK publication and, despite their self description, currently dominated by conservative writers--but UK conservative, so fiscally conservative but generally socially liberal. Because both those elements show up in opinion pieces, some (US) readers view them as centrist, but I see them as conservative because the central goal of the magazine is espouse conservative fiscal measures, free trade, and lower government involvement in business. So make of that what you will. Some international readers (about half the UK, most of Europe except Germany, many Canadians) view it as farther to the right than I portray it, and others view it as farther to the left than I make it out (China, Singapore, Australia). For the same degree left of center (maybe more so) and the same sort of content I'd hit The Guardian Weekly.

 

The NYTimes news sections are just that, objective, unbiased reporting like you'd expect from any factual newspaper (I mean that, and think the WSJ is similarly without slant in the news section--it drives me nuts when commentators confuse opinion slants for whole paper slants). The analysis pieces come from a variety of contributors, including a token fiscal conservative or two and some apolitical types, but is dominantly liberal. The opinion pieces are overwhelmingly liberal and can be downright condescending. If you want the same content and the opposite slant to opinions and analysis, the Wall Street Journal is the obvious choice. I'd view the Washington Post as somewhere in the center, maybe very, very slightly right leaning (it has some very outspoken conservative opinion writers and some editorials can be downright hawkish, but many editorials and opinions are center or left leaning). For a similar international newspaper, I'd read the Times of London (although like all British papers it can be sensationalist).

 

EDIT: The reason you have a hard time believing the Economist is balanced is because it has what seem like contradictions to an American reader. Some things we view as center left, some we view as center right, but often only one way or another on a particular topic, and a lack of balance within a given subject. It is compelling writing regardless, and worth reading. If you feel the need to "centre-check" something you can read the BBC.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Usmivka

[1Q84]

Economist is best for an international view, IMHO.  Excellent coverage of developments going on around the world...  New York Times has more of a liberal slant and is more focused on U.S. events (although more international than most U.S. newspapers).  I personally read both.  If I could only choose one it would be the Economist.

 

Right! Now I have to decide if I want a daily or a weekly... I guess reading both would be ideal. I don't think I could afford both subscriptions, however...

 

I'm taking a class with our department chair this semester (who is well-known in the field), and she assigned us an article from the Economist last week as a look at research from perspectives outside our field. So, yeah, I think it's a good deal, especially at $1.76 an issue. To put it in perspective, I pay more for a cup of coffee! (I know, I need to get off my lazy a** and make my own instead of always buying it at the cafe).

 

Ha! So true. It puts into perspective how much garbage I spend money on and how I could be putting that change towards a magazine. Granted this is only the electronic version I'm talking about but still...

 

First, they are different kinds of publications. The Economist is a weekly with primarily analysis and opinion, the NYTimes is daily newspaper with primarily current events with a small amount of opinion/analysis.

 

The Economist is a UK publication and, despite their self description, currently dominated by conservative writers--but UK conservative, so fiscally conservative but generally socially liberal. Because both those elements show up in opinion pieces, some (US) readers view them as centrist, but I see them as conservative because the central goal of the magazine is espouse conservative fiscal measures, free trade, and lower government involvement in business. So make of that what you will. Some international readers (about half the UK, most of Europe except Germany, many Canadians) view it as farther to the right than I portray it, and others view it as farther to the left than I make it out (China, Singapore, Australia). For the same degree left of center (maybe more so) and the same sort of content I'd hit The Guardian Weekly.

 

The NYTimes news sections are just that, objective, unbiased reporting like you'd expect from any factual newspaper (I mean that, and think the WSJ is similarly without slant in the news section--it drives me nuts when commentators confuse opinion slants for whole paper slants). The analysis pieces come from a variety of contributors, including a token fiscal conservative or two and some apolitical types, but is dominantly liberal. The opinion pieces are overwhelmingly liberal and can be downright condescending. If you want the same content and the opposite slant to opinions and analysis, the Wall Street Journal is the obvious choice. I'd view the Washington Post as somewhere in the center, maybe very, very slightly right leaning (it has some very outspoken conservative opinion writers and some editorials can be downright hawkish, but many editorials and opinions are center or left leaning). For a similar international newspaper, I'd read the Times of London (although like all British papers it can be sensationalist).

 

EDIT: The reason you have a hard time believing the Economist is balanced is because it has what seem like contradictions to an American reader. Some things we view as center left, some we view as center right, but often only one way or another on a particular topic, and a lack of balance within a given subject. It is compelling writing regardless, and worth reading. If you feel the need to "centre-check" something you can read the BBC.

 

Thank you so much. You're quite the newshound!

[hejduk]

Actually, you can get the Economist for free, and legally. If you own a Mac, download "Calibre", which a program that acts as a PDF and book database. Calibre is free, and you can set it to aggregate the Economist from the magazine's website, and the program will actually stitch together that week's magazine for **free** for you. I have Calibre set to download the Economist every friday (it's what the program's author recommends), and I get a digital copy of the exact magazine you'll find on newstands. Once downloaded to your Mac, you can send it through Itunes to your Ipad, and read in Ibooks, etc. And yes, it is awesome, completely legal, and saved me $$$.

[Usmivka]

Actually, you can get the Economist for free, and legally. If you own a Mac, download "Calibre", which a program that acts as a PDF and book database. Calibre is free, and you can set it to aggregate the Economist from the magazine's website, and the program will actually stitch together that week's magazine for **free** for you. I have Calibre set to download the Economist every friday (it's what the program's author recommends), and I get a digital copy of the exact magazine you'll find on newstands. Once downloaded to your Mac, you can send it through Itunes to your Ipad, and read in Ibooks, etc. And yes, it is awesome, completely legal, and saved me $$$.

I'd argue that "legal" and "not yet regulated" are not exactly the same thing. The earliest incarnation of Napster with free music was temporarily legal too. I think what you are doing follows the letter, but not spirit, of copyright law. Which on one level, who cares. But ethically I think this is not ideal--you are letting paying readers subsidize your consumption, and encouraging others to do the same. Subscribers could arguably be hurt by the aggregate of many choosing to the do the same thing as you, if higher prices are needed to offset lower subscriber numbers while maintaining the same content. There is a low cost, easy to access alternative to this approach. Just another point of view though, doesn't affect me either way.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Usmivka