>>7613976 I used to have a paid subscription to the Economist. To be honest, I never read it. I only signed up because I was at a point in my life where I desperately wanted to be more sophisticated, or at least appear that way, and it happened to be one of the subscriptions that my sister was selling for a school fundraiser.
I also subscribed to the Wall Street Journal and would pull it out at school so people would think I was super mature with my OCBD shirts and desert boots.
>>7614014 They recently got a new editor (I think in the last 12 months). And as someone who has had a subscription for the past three years, I think the quality of the writing has declined significantly since the editor has taken over. It's essentially become Reddit-tier. Maybe I should cancel my subscription...
I always understood that they took such a stance regarding local British politics. I didn't care because I read it for more international news. Recently, they've started to view all goings on through that lens. It's ridiculous.
I have also noticed an increase in spelling and grammatical errors. Minor annoyance but I feel that it says something about the organization.
This is the same magazine that called Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century - with its revolutionary idea of raising taxes on rich people to something resembling pre-eighties levels - "socialist dogma". It's an absolutely dreary rag that clings to a discredited economic orthodoxy, but rather than doing so from the left it's very clearly a liberal mouthpiece.
>>7613976 > Go to LSE > Live in a hall where you have mail pigeonholes > literally 2/3 of them have unopened (The Economist is shipped in a plastic bag) The Economist their parents pay 155 pounds a year for.
It's a dry magazine that offers perhaps too many facts and too little analysis. One has to have a certain grain to themselves to be actually able to read the endless small print reports on issues that aren't on the cover.
>>7614034 >>7614052 They fucking hate Leftists. They're neoliberals who believe that any measure to benifit the people over capital is 'populist' and 'anti-democratic', which they also describe to the far-right demagagous (Trump, Putin, Le Pen, etc) that are becoming more and more popular nowadays in order to reify them as 'the same', even when they themselves support far-right regimes that institute neoliberal reforms when the Left ever attempts (not even comitt, just attempt) to ever do anything.
>finance and financial regulation: actually have some valuable and pertinent viewpoints, occasionally take the side of the banks when they shouldn't but usually are right when they take about curbing risky financial practices and improving stability in international finance, the one caveat is that as an editorial policy they obviously hold as out of the question any criticism of the practice of central banks like the Fed. etc
>free trade and economics: Fervantly pro-free trade and privatization. They go out of their way to over-hype its benefits and downplay and ignore its faults. In some corrupt and developing 3rd world countries privatization would obviously improve the performance of some state-run corporations but they would have us believe this sort of improvement is the standard result everywhere which is just not true. The TPA/TPP/TTIP trifecta if implemented will be a disaster for the western middle class and the economist worshipping it has made them lose a lot of what little credibility they had.
>on foreign policy and world events: essentially functions as a mouthpeice of the US state department/UK foreign ministry. Glaringly obvious anti-Russia/Syria/Iran/Ecuador/Venezuela bias to the point that it makes them omit important facts and rely on ridiculous statements and assertions, and thats not to say these countries have nothing to be criticized for but the economist really makes fools out of themselves here. On issues that dont hugely concern the US like the political situation in obscure countries they sometimes have relatively unbiased and informative coverage
overall: ultimately of little value but amusing and informative enough to cause one to continue reading it even when they are sick of the snide assuredness in their hopelessly biased coverage.
Not exactly on topic but what are some of your favorite literary magazines? I looked over at pw for some but everyone I came across that dealt with literary fiction were basically tumblr incarnate that only wanted to deal with PoC, trans, and faggot issues instead of actual human elements.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.