The Economist

Summary: I am a lifetime subscriber

I measure magazines (and newspapers) by the amount of time it takes me to go through them. As time is my most important resource, I think this is a good metric. The Economist is at the top of the list - I spend a minimum of 6 hours with each issues - sometimes (when there's a special report on an issue, or when the Technology Quarterly is published) close to 10. I cannot spend more than 1 hour with Newsweek or Time, at most 3 with Fortune (the only other business magazine I currently subscribe to).

What I like:

1/ The depth of research, the pro-market bias, the complete lack of interest in fads, the staff's ability to pull obscure subjects out of amorphous anonymity and give them significance through proper framing.

2/ The Obituaries. The Technology Quarterly issues. The mix of politics and economics. The books and arts section. The on-line extras. The global perspective.

3/ The consistency. From one issue to the next, Fortune can be brilliant or thin (at times lacking), dealing with the important or with the mundane. There's no such thing at The Economist, where each issue is packed with articles written at the highest standard.

What I don't like - minor quibbles:

1/ The distribution company responsible for delivering the magazine in Canada. Instead of a set day (which was the case when I lived in the US), in Toronto I get the magazine randomly through the week.

2/ Some graphs (which use only shades of blue) are hard to read by a color blind person as myself.


I don't think there's a better way to spend $127/year.

Summary: phony centrist position - has moved from right to left

The Economist, while still a great source for world events, claims to be radically centrist. They give examples of endorsements on the right: Thatcher, Reagen - and on the left: Clinton, Obama. This is specious - chronologically, a trend from moving from right to left is clearly discernable.

They may back the right in an election, but rarely when the election is close. The recent claim that a defeat for Labor in the UK elections would probably be good for the country is not impressive because polls predicted that the election was not significantly in play, but a foregone conclusion.

I get the impression quite frequently that the magazine routinely dissembles it's true perspective. While ostensibly calling out misbehavior among climate researchers in the recent issue on the climate controversy, they on balance papered over and downplayed much of the fraud by leading UK scientists - fraud presented quite baldy elsewhere, for example in Der Spiegel:

[...]

One got the distinct impression that they were doing damage control.

In this week's article, "What's Wrong with the American Right?", the writer drips with scorn and derision in describing "southern fried crazies", the "hysterical blogosphere", "ravings of Fox News blowhards". Fine - one might say that they criticize the Left as well - and they do. But they rarely skewer the Left; it's generally quite gentle for some reason - in the manner that you might chide a favorite cousin for an indiscretion.

And as to their claim that they're classic free market liberals - while supporting the recent healthcare legislation in the US - give me a break!