Also agree that a problem with The Economist is that it is always overtly pushing a particular view of the view world (rooted in a faith in the rationality of markets), which is coupled with fairly strong advice/prescriptions in much of the writing.
Also agree that a problem with The Economist is that it is always overtly pushing a particular view of the view world (rooted in a faith in the rationality of markets), which is coupled with fairly strong advice/prescriptions in much of the writing.
On the front page now:
1. Seven books that will make you smarter
2. Whoops, I Deleted My Life
3. How Much Would You Pay to Save Your Cat’s Life?
4. The Strength of the ‘Soft Daddy’
5. The Black Investors Who Were Burned by Bitcoin
Etc.
These don't sound like articles that are worth my time. I did persevere with reading the magazine for quite a while out of habit but by now I'm pretty much convinced that most of these articles will be just as vapid as their titles.
I would definitely appreciate a quality/triviality filter though, maybe the print is the only way to get it.
I like The Atlantic in general, although I think they have a bit of what I sometimes call a "contrarian bias", e.g., prioritizing "the conventional wisdom is X, but here's why it's wrong" think-pieces even when their theses aren't particularly strong. (Slate and Salon were much worse about that in their heyday.)