Am I the only one who finds the writing in the economist to be about as deep as a 9th-grader's book report? I mean I basically learned nothing from this article.
It seems likely in this case that this is more a result of none of this being news to you than a problem with the article itself. It wasn't news to me either, but I know people to whom it would be.
I stopped following current events a year and a half ago, so I stopped reading the Economist. But from what I remember, no they do often have pretty deep articles. But sometimes reporting is just reporting, and I'd rather have the facts reported than a story blown out of proportion.
No, I totally don't get the Economist. People always tell me to read it. Smart people. Then I read it, and it's like a 9th grader's book report, as you say. It's a hair better than Time magazine or Newsweek.
Well, it is called The Economist. If you expect to read intelligent analysis of medical conditions, I suggest you look elsewhere. The Economist is good at providing analysis of economical and business matters. I read it for those components and ignore the rest.
Their coverage of world politics and other topics is also very good. Only the Science and Technology section is appallingly and depressingly bad.
Then again, that may just be a result of us knowing a lot about Science and Technology. I wonder if those who are experts in economics and those other fields The Economist supposedly covers with skill think the same things about it covers their area of expertise.
I wonder the same, but from people I trust and what I do know, it seems that they are better than pretty much anything else being published this days. Their Science and Tech section is clearly not better than alternatives, and in many ways much worse.
Their Science and Technology section is tabloid-grade garbage. The rest is excellent and way better than what you can find almost anywhere else.