Hi there - love the newsletter. I explicitly don't read The Economist for two, linked reasons. Firstly *because* there's no byline. I simply don't trust an article stripped of the context of who the author is. It's important to me to know (or at least be able to discover) what stake the author has done in telling me stuff. Secondly, in an 80/20 kind of way I pretty much know what The Economist's take is going to be on most subjects. I've read it enough times here and there over the last thirty years to know it'll be broadly gentlemanly capitalist about most stuff and generally err on the side of money over people.
Enjoyed your post on The Economist and the Dune tidbits.
Two points from an Indian subscriber of the weekly "newspaper" since 2001:
-Their crisp summary of complex topics is unmatched so I love the science and technology and culture sections (also where can you read obituaries that are informative, poignant, funny--sometimes all at the same time). However they suffer an inexplicable crude bias when it comes to India and other Asian countries, with condescending views.
-My experience offers a contrary view to your "cover curse" angle. I have found them to be good trendspotters in finance and business. Usually other mainstream media run trend headlines a year after The Economist.
We need intermissions reinstated for movies longer than 2.5 hours. The urination anxiety is real.
Good article. Here’s a more empirical look.
https://medium.com/@mbrentdonnelly/a-somewhat-empirical-look-at-the-magazine-cover-indicator-2d0ca835f7d1
Scroll down here for out of sample performance after I wrote that article
https://x.com/donnelly_brent/status/1745867570127814876?s=46&t=Z-boW5UHRWKGTmYteOnSkA
Who needs the economist to keep up if we already have the SatPost…
Hi there - love the newsletter. I explicitly don't read The Economist for two, linked reasons. Firstly *because* there's no byline. I simply don't trust an article stripped of the context of who the author is. It's important to me to know (or at least be able to discover) what stake the author has done in telling me stuff. Secondly, in an 80/20 kind of way I pretty much know what The Economist's take is going to be on most subjects. I've read it enough times here and there over the last thirty years to know it'll be broadly gentlemanly capitalist about most stuff and generally err on the side of money over people.
I flick through the Economist when I see it.
My one problem, though, if it has a topic I know a lot about, it often seems inaccurate or a weird take.
Makes me nervous about reading and believing the articles that I don't know a lot about.
Would have loved you to touch on the Economist's infamously brilliant billboards.
Enjoyed your post on The Economist and the Dune tidbits.
Two points from an Indian subscriber of the weekly "newspaper" since 2001:
-Their crisp summary of complex topics is unmatched so I love the science and technology and culture sections (also where can you read obituaries that are informative, poignant, funny--sometimes all at the same time). However they suffer an inexplicable crude bias when it comes to India and other Asian countries, with condescending views.
-My experience offers a contrary view to your "cover curse" angle. I have found them to be good trendspotters in finance and business. Usually other mainstream media run trend headlines a year after The Economist.