Hacker News Reader

Comment by osipovas | Hacker News Reader

My life has changed for the better since subscribing to the Economist in 2011. For me, it's not about paying for content (which is great) but for the 'feeling of being informed'.

After reading each issue I feel informed about what is going on around the world. This has sparked many conversations with people from around the world.

I hope that following this transition that 'feeling of being informed' will not go away and I have no reason to suspect it would.

If only I had local and regional news at such a calibre...

View on HN

I subscribed to the economist sometime in the middle of 2012 and did not have a positive experience.

I'm convinced that much of the allure of the economist comes from that it is frank contrarian news source.

I don't like the anonymous authorship for reasons which have been stated on hacker news in other economist posts.

The economist is sneaky. All of the articles are fact/numbers based and then shoehorned with a political interpretation that you can't realistically argue with unless you are an expert in the some very niche domain. This leads to many people in my field (finance) having strong opinions on an impossible variety of subjects which ultimately boils down to parroting the economist. The culture of "lying with statistics" comes to mind.

I realize many of these problems are inherent in journalism but the economist relies more than others on being opaquely unimpeachable. Reading the economist felt less like a dialog and more like "believe us or appear uninformed in public."

I was subscribed to the economist for several years, and unsubscribed once I figured out that much of their content on non-western countries is either heavily tinted, or outright false.

The economist is very good at providing readers with the illusion of being informed.

Think about how multifaceted US policy is on any given day of the year. The economist boils down similar issues to a blurb on a page with a heading that says "middle east." So now you can turn that page and be confident that for this week you know what's going on in the middle east.

The truth is the economist fills a void. Before reading an issue you know nothing about current events in India. After reading you know something. Something is vastly more power than confessing ignorance in any situation. And if anyone questions you, well, the economist said so.

In any given issue the Middle East & Africa section is 4-5 pages long, hardly a "blurb".

That's 4-5 pages that claim to adequately cover the financial and political current events of 71 countries

I think I'm justified in being skeptical.

...per week. I highly doubt their goal is to inform you on all current events in the region in a single week. But it's a weekly and over time a reader would develop a cursory understanding of events across the region (they also briefly touch on the highlights in the "The World This Week").

I think they're assuming their readers will know how to dig further on events they find relevant. Personally I find The Economist pairs well with a subscription to Foreign Affairs.

Is there any news source which gives that level of detail?

Of course you won't learn much about a country from reading a single article about it in the relevant section of a weekly newspaper. But if you read it regularly, you'll read numerous articles about that country over the course of a year - probably more than 50 in the case of a moderately powerful and dynamic country like India. Over time you'll realize that some predictions made in the articles pan out, some don't, some is consequential, some not and so on.

Reading a single issue will not make you well-informed; at most it will provide you with something to chat about at a cocktail party (if you're the sort of person who likes to chat about the news) or a point of reference if you meet someone from a foreign country and want to ask a topical question.

I've found that reading over time is advantageous, not because one collects more and more trivia about more and more places (although that's true) but because the more important themes emerge of their own accord most of the time. By this is I mean that one tends to become aware of major issues long before they rise to the top of the 24 hour news cycle.

This year, I read an article in The Economist where they endorsed the opposition candidate (Buhari) for the upcoming Presidential election in Nigeria. The article stated that Buhari had thrice contested before and lost the presidential elections and each time accepted the verdict. But that turned out to be false (and the comments in the article said so but Economist did not update the article). Each time Buhari lost the election, he challenged the results (as he had a right to) all the way to the Supreme Court.

ISTM you're both right. To challenge election results all the way up to a country's Supreme Court, if one has the right to do so, is to accept the institutional verdict on the outcome while disputing the initial outcome (of the vote count). In many developing countries, unwanted election results are followed by rioting, coup attempts, or highly public sulks and political maneuvering often enough that it's a problem for stability.

Mounting a challenge within an institutional or constitutional framework is qualitatively different - it puts the rule of law above pure power politics.

>I'm convinced that much of the allure of the economist comes from that it is frank contrarian news source.

Contrarian to what? It follows the Washington Consensus pretty much religiously.

It also came out in favor of George Bush and the Iraq war in the beginning (when everybody else was) and against them after (when everybody else was also).

Sticking to the theme of US elections, it also came out for Barack Obama in 2012. That's pretty contrarian considering The Economists history and Mitt Romney's policies on Wall Street.

The vast majority of economist articles can be summed up as "you thought it was that way, but it's actually this way."

Nah, Obama is a pretty neoliberal President, just a different flavor to Romney. Very bankster friendly.

If they start supporting Bernie Sanders' run, though, I'll take notice.

In general I agree. I stopped reading the economist since they often approach stories as if they only have 1 or 2 sides. I would rather read more nuanced long articles on fewer issues.

There is a sort of sophmoric danger zone WRT being informed on any issue. Sometimes you can be informed enough to discuss something, but lack a proper nuanced understanding from multiple sides.

I'm fickle when it comes to magazines, but I still love reading them. My latest infatuation is Harpers. However, in their latest issue they wrote a medium length piece on something in my area of expertise, and kinda did a poor job of it. This makes me question the quality of their other pieces on subjects that I am less familiar with.

I have some formal training in economics, but not enough to call myself an economist. However, even I can see that the economist performs their economic narrative generation a bit too neatly. They leave out nuance in favor of length.

I do agree that the economist is a bit sneaky like that, I think the latter part of your post is spot on. But I do feel that it's not at ALL a contrarian news source.

I coincidentally also subscribed to the Economist in 2011 and I can relate to the feeling of being informed. However I had to cancel my subscription in 2013 for lack of time. After a while, I could never finish an issue. To be honest I have regretted my decision and I now feed on lesser quality news from "free" sources.

It really is a great publication but I couldn't justify the spending or the piling up of issues. I might go back this year, been thinking about it.

I had the same issue when I was up for renewal a few years back, with issues piling up and no time, but I didn't want to miss the content. I first tried the audio version of the iPhone app, but the complexity of the content was too much for a non-English native. Finally I decided for the digital version on the iPhone gap, which I read while commuting.

I had the same issue. Then I found out the Economist puts out a audio version of their entire print edition. My podcast app downloads it automatically every Thursday (using RSS), and it provides me with more than enough content for the week. I listen to it at 1.5x speed and can get through 5-10 articles during my commute.

If you have airline miles lying around, most programs offer a year subscription for around 5000 miles. No digital access though, just print.

The key to reading the Economist is to go into it not planning to read the whole thing.

My approach: Read all the short blurbs in the first couple of pages, then most of the 1/2 page articles that follow, note any that seem interesting, then seek out the longer versions deeper in the issue. As you work through the issue, skip or lightly skim the rest that don't spark interest.

Your "reading" it still, what is this 2005?? The audio edition is amazing! After three years of listening to every issue I think I may be picking up a British accent in my day to day life.

How does that help with time? Nearly everyone reading it is most certainly capable of reading far, far faster than listening, no? I suppose if you have an unfortunate, long commute, it might work, but otherwise?

When you're doing physical tasks while not having to co-operate with someone else, you can listen to the audio version while continuing to execute on the physical task.

You can also listen while moving your person about from place to place, which can be quite hard or inefficient to do while reading.

I certainly spend a lot of time moving from one place to another. I also assume there are plenty of people who do the same.

It's quite hard to read while making lunch, cleaning, running, cycling etc. It's also quite hard to concentrate on anything cerebral after a day of work, doing any number of these things and tending to the needs of small kids.

Audio books, OTOH, make housework a joy since I can tune out of the horror of cooking and cleaning and concentrate on accumulating knowledge from one source or another.

Also, much more motivation to run since simlarly, I can just observe my pulse meter occasionally and otherwise concentrate on the book.

Yes! It is amazing!

I listen to it during my commute to work. Plus I get the issue on Thursday evening, as oppose to the physical copy that arrives Monday or Tuesday the following week.

I did the same - subscribed in 2007 and cancelled it in 2012. And I am here in minority but I cancelled it BECAUSE of its content. The barrage of anti China news, anti India news, and then the lack of any standing on any issue except free market. Economist consistently backtracks on everything if it somehow results in more free market. It is why it was established in the first place so why complain? The height was when they published an article saying how Iran is against hezbollah but two issues later they said Iran must stop supporting hezbollah. Then they once went on for several weeks about chinese government's crackdown on prostitution and how it is fomenting dissent. Then a train crashed and again they went harping about how dissent was just around the corner. Moving out of West in 2010 suddenly showed me how Economist is just a high end mouth piece of British government, hidden behind sophistication and the prestigious name. So I decided to just cancel my subscription.

Feels pretty familiar. Where did you end up living by the way in 2010?

I am in India.

Informed about the neo-liberal point of view.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com