I see this claim in nearly every HN thread about the Economist -- that it's declined in quality.

And it baffles me because, having read it for 20+ years and gone back for research to read plenty of articles from further back... I just don't see it at all.

It's the same market-based, socially progressive, pragmatic international strongly opinionated journalism it's always been. Sometimes I think the way it characterizes something is missing part of the full picture, but it's always been that way. Journalists are fallible humans, they aren't gods, and it's not like there was some mythical past where they always got things right.

I can totally understand people not enjoying it as much as they grow older, simply because you come to mistrust journalism more in general, or shift in your ideological viewpoint so it becomes less agreeable. Readers change.

But I'm getting tired of this trope that it's the Economist that's been changing, that's been getting worse. It just doesn't make any sense. It's the same journalism it's always been. For every article you take issue with, I'm sure you'd find just as many from 20 or 30 years ago.

I suppose it's just part of a general narrative of declinism, how everything used to be so much better and the world is crumbling. But in this case, I just don't see it. You might not like the magazine anymore and that's fine, but I think there's a good chance it's you who has changed, not the magazine.

I agree that The Economist has not been declining. I believe that what is really happening is that, at some point, a reader will eventually come across an article where they are particularly knowledgable about the subject matter. To their horror, they proceed to read an article that is “fraudulent by omission”. The cherry picked facts (which are correct) are chosen to fit a narrative. Every article read after this is mired by scepticism and therefor the perceived decline of the publication. This is what happened to me back in 2015 and try as I might, I just couldn’t get back into reading that magazine. I really miss those ignorant days of blissful intellectual smugness though.

It’s like watching a movie where you only ever see the good side of the hero. Viewers do not want you to change their mind half way through or cause them to be confused by the muddy reality of things.

This effect is worth mentioning in this context even though, as another commenter noted, it wasn’t what I meant. Thanks for adding it though. https://loricism.fandom.com/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_Effect

What he described is literally the opposite of Gell-Mann Amnesia, which is the phenomenon where such a reader will forget about all of the inaccuracies he noticed in the article on which he was an expert and continue believing other articles to be accurate.

It's called the why-am-i-paying-for-this effect.

Same here — I don't see a decline in quality of the articles. I am annoyed (and refuse to use) their new phone app, which runs animated ads in articles, so that part is going downhill like everything else in the ad world. But the journalism seems to be good.

I carefully read articles about my country to check for inaccuracies, and sometimes ask people from other countries about other articles. The result of these checks is always the same: the journalism is solid, facts are presented well, the articles are always slightly condescending and overuse the word "should". If the "shouldism" annoys you, you can always easily skip these parts.

I continue to subscribe, because it's pretty much the only thing out there.

I think the reflexive mistrust in all "establishment" papers, magazines, journals, etc is mostly due to the chatter about them on social media. People have fawning praise or ruthless scorn for an article, usually based on some combination of the headline and what everyone else is posting about it. Sometimes this bleeds into the traditional journalism itself, leading to media chasing meme/clickbait topics, but I think "we the people" are not as innocent as we like to feel we are.

From what I have seen it hasn't been getting much worse. Other than just bounce rate I think far more people are becoming aware that reality is different from The Economist "a thousand words by Friday" writing. Hong Kong being one example.

One thing I've observed personally is that your personal information content changes over time, as you get to know the culture of the people writing. There's just less surprising stuff in there.

Agree 100%. Sensibilities have changed and I fear it's due to a load of social media propaganda. People have been overly conditioned to look for conspiracies everywhere. Even if you have resisted the onslaught of criticism of "liberal media" it can wear you down in subtle ways. I don't see any substantial drop in quality for the traditional standard bearers like The Economist or the New York Times. They're not perfect because they are run by a collection of human beings but they still do a better job than anyone else.

I tend to agree with OP. Quality declined, I cancelled my subscription.

The exercise that was cancelling, including being hung up on twice during the process, is why I’d never go back.

I was considering subscribing until I read that you need to ring someone to cancel. That's a no-go.

I vehemently disagree with the "Economist has declined" crowd but I had to unsubscribe one time for financial reasons a few years ago and the difficulty in unsubscribing is why I will never subscribe again. I had to call a number in Singapore (where I did not live) and wait on hold for a long time.

I'll strongly opposed that notion. I've been an avid subscriber for just under 10 years, so not as long but long enough. I do truly believe that in the last 1-2 years the "market-based, socially progressive, pragmatic international strongly opinionated journalism" has taken a back seat to fence-hopping, evidence-lacking, low quality articles that I normally see in the Times or the Telegraph.

I've got racks of magazines saved from those 10 years. Flicking back through now and comparing their critique on the EU say, versus 7 years ago, is like chalk and cheese. I'm not sure whether it was Brexit, Trumpism, the new wave of journalism from Vice/Buzzfeed and the like, or journalism's growing obsession with Twitter that caused this strange shift in writing style and substance, but I can physically see the disparity before my eyes now; hence the original post.

I'd doubt my opinion on the matter if, like you rightly put, my viewpoint could be seen shifted over time. But I still read and enjoy the same suite of news and articles that I always have in every other case. I'm not looking for a replacement to them. The Economist is an exception in my case, not the norm. If it was generic declinism, I'd be seeing fault in all of my inputs. As it stands, I'm only seeing it in the Economist. Perhaps it's because it's the one I'm so intimately familiar with. Equally, it's possible that the quality has changed. Maybe there's a good chance you're unable to see it because you've changed in tandem with the magazine, not kept to your own path.

As somebody who has been reading it even longer, I disagree.

We live in an age of increasing polarization. Asymmetric polarization, I should add; look at how the US House has changed since 1980 or so: https://xkcd.com/1127/large/

The Economist has long been attempting to straddle common political divides even as those divides grow larger. This has been causing fragmentation everywhere. Look, for example, at the Libertarian party in America, which is falling apart right now [1] as they drop antisemitic memes [2] and say it's fine.

All of this is happening at the same time they've shifted from a weekly cadence to continuous publishing, meaning less time to ponder, with a significant expansion in volume of content.

I think they're doing a decent job of keeping it together, but the cracks are showing. E.g., their "by invitation" pieces are by nature platforming people and avoiding most of their editorial standards. They are surely cheap to produce and good clickbait, but I think it's a mistake. I also see right-wing framings creeping into pieces more often than before.

Admittedly, it's a hard problem. When the leader of the Republican party is supping with bigots [3], there's no longer a clear line between mainstream views and the awful fringe. So I'm still subscribing and I hope they work it out. But I also wouldn't mind finding some alternatives these days so that if things get worse, I have options.

[1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/libertarian-party-is-fighting-...

[2] https://boingboing.net/2022/11/15/libertarian-party-embraces...

[3] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=trump+k...

It is true that I disagree with some of the right-wing framings, but I don't object on that account. I've never entirely agreed with The Economist, but that hasn't kept me from enjoying it and finding it useful.

But the US right has from my perspective gone insane. Take as an example the belief that Trump won the 2020 election. A majority of Republicans (and only Republicans, not independents, Democrats, or people outside the US) believe that Joe Biden did not legitimately win: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/07/republica...

And unfortunately, it's not confined to the US. From Boris Johnson to Jair Bolsonaro to Viktor Orban and well beyond, there are a lot of politicians on the right who you can't really call conservative in that they, like Trump, have repudiated a lot of traditional conservative values like honesty, accuracy, and integrity.

My problem is that the Economist, whose tone for me has always been one of cool reason, whose founding goal was "to take part in 'a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress,'" is letting the crazy leak in.

As I said, it's a hard problem to stay balanced in unbalanced times, so I have sympathy for them. But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

The Economist has repeatedly and emphatically rejected the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. I'm really not seeing any "crazy leak in". Pretty much all "crazy" views I can think of the Economist rejects vigorously.

Then it's a good thing I didn't claim the Economist agreed with the Big Lie.

Then what is the "crazy leak[ing] in" you're referring to?

And it absolutely accepts that climate change is real, human caused, and needs to be addressed, which at least in the US is not the standard right-wing opinion.

> But the US right has from my perspective gone insane. Take as an example the belief that Trump won the 2020 election. A majority of Republicans (and only Republicans, not independents, Democrats, or people outside the US) believe that Joe Biden did not legitimately win: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/07/republica...

I think both parties have gone insane and have been there for many years. The US system has been unbalanced and wobbly for years. While the problem is much worse on the right as of late, the corrosion of our electoral system is strong and alive on the left as well. The incoming House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries repeatedly said that the election was stolen by Trump and that his presidency is illegitimate. [0] Honestly, this tweet written by Jeffries reads exactly like an unhinged Trump Twitter rant. [1] The claims that the election was stolen was repeated publicly by Hillary Clinton, then the defacto leader of the party. Going further back, there are Democrats who still say that the election was stolen from Al Gore, which is a ridiculous claim. To be clear, Trump takes these assaults on our democratic institutions to an entirely different level and breadth, but let's look at this from both sides instead of asserting that it's just one side.

[0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/election-denier-hake...

[1] https://twitter.com/RepJeffries/status/964581721088897025?s=...

Why do people link to articles in rags like the Washington Examiner via sites that launder the url into something harmless like msn or yahoo?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/

> And unfortunately, it's not confined to the US. From Boris Johnson to Jair Bolsonaro to Viktor Orban and well beyond, there are a lot of politicians on the right who you can't really call conservative in that they, like Trump, have repudiated a lot of traditional conservative values like honesty, accuracy, and integrity.

> My problem is that the Economist, whose tone for me has always been one of cool reason, whose founding goal was "to take part in 'a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress,'" is letting the crazy leak in.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. It honestly makes me wonder if you've actually read The Economist in the past 7 years.

The Economist is very critical of Boris Johnson - their latest articles on him include "The tragedy of Boris Johnson", "Boris Johnson should go immediately" and "Clownfall: Britain after Boris".

Recent pieces on Jair Bolsonaro include "The enduring threat of Jair Bolsonaro", "Win or lose, Jair Bolsonaro poses a threat to Brazilian democracy" and "President Jair Bolsonaro is bad for Brazil's economy".

On Viktor Orban they say "Viktor Orban's victory is a triumph for illiberal nationalism", "How Viktor Orban hollowed out Hungary's democracy".

On Trump I won't even begin. Almost no publication has been more harshly critical of Trump.

So your claim that The Economist is determined to "both-sides" every discussion doesn't hold any water at all to me. The Economist has always had an open and transparent editorial position and they write to that position. They are not interested in promoting the views of extremists or crazies on either side. If you have such an example I would be keen to hear it.

> So your claim that The Economist is determined to "both-sides" every discussion

This is not a claim I made. And you generally don't seem to have come to grips with my point.

I think you have a point... and, furthermore, declinism today is just about the same as it always has been.

I have to disagree.

The quality of decline has really gone downhill in the last few years. Used to be that when things fell apart, they really fell apart (think revolution, collapse) but now they just peter out.

I agree. But I optimistically believe that decline will soon experience a renaissance.

We’re gonna start declining again. We’re gonna decline so much. We’re gonna decline at every level. We’re gonna decline economically. We’re gonna decline with the economy. We’re gonna decline with military. We’re gonna decline with healthcare and for our veterans. We’re gonna decline with every single facet.

We’re gonna decline so much you may even get tired of declining. And you’ll say “Please! Please! It’s too much declining! We can’t take it anymore. Mr President, it’s too much!”

And he’ll say “No it isn’t. We have to keep declining. We have to decline MORE! We’re gonna decline MORE! We’re gonna decline so much! I love you America. You’re gonna be so happy!”

Ahh yes. Soon. Soon.

One thing I noticed about The Economist is that every so often they'll bring up some interesting criticism of a widely held view. Then a few days later they'll publish an article vigorously supporting the Current Thing. A particularly obvious example was when they had a column about Ukraine from John Mearshimer, and the various follow-ups. They also ran that takedown of Mohammed bin Salman but periodically tout the upsides of Saudi Arabia.

I don't hold it against them, really; it's a business, and modern journalism relies on maintaining relationships with sources, who are often government officials and agencies. It's not too hard to recognize the stuff that gets published "defensively" once you're used to that.

I’ve noticed this but I don’t look at it as maintaining relationships.

If you are going to cover a topic deeply better cover all sides of it rather than just a criticism piece or a puff piece. This is what Keeps me coming back to economist.

Publishing opposing viewpoints is incredibly common. Getting opinions that go against the editors is the whole point of op-eds

This is an interesting perspective. Is it harder to maintain these relationships now than before? If so, why?

I'm no expert on the topic, but anyone in a position of influence has a lot more options for communicating with the public than they did a few decades ago. Leaks from SCOTUS were unimaginable in the 20th century, for example. Under the usual supply-demand assumptions, that means that any particular journalist has a lot less power in the relationship.

Concentration of wealth could be one reason. Getting one petrol mogul angry in the 80s was no biggie, today’s billionaires will literally buy your whole newspaper out.

They gave a platform to Mearshimer and his 'my entire argument is built on the thesis that Putin has never lied (even though he has lied)'? Glad I've skipped reading it the last year.

I used to read it years ago when it was run by the editor who promoted ending every article with a witticism. I missed that when they killed it off and stopped reading it around that time. Did they ever bring it back?

Its quality increased dramatically the mid-2000s. Before that it was much more conversational and opinionated.

I feel this exact same way every time someone claims Google search results have declined in quality.

Although the decline in Google's search results is less subjective. Either you can find what you're looking for or you can't. Plenty of people (certainly not all) can't.

FWIW, I agree with parent.

In areas where I have some knowledge (tech), I find The Economist has reasonably accurate (if perhaps simplified, for the wider audience) grasp of things. I trust that the same holds for the other areas.

Nah. We live in an age of asymmetric polarization. XKCD has a good rendering of the DW-NOMINATE data. Look especially at the US House since Reagan: https://xkcd.com/1127/

The right has moved far more than the left. Just looking at today's news, we find a prominent right-wing activist was convicted of plotting to overthrow the government: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63802649

The only area I think you could unequivocally say the US left has progressed on is civil rights for LGBT+ people. But in terms of things like labor rights, a social safety net, environmental conservation, gun control, election integrity, and business regulation, I'd say the center of the US left hasn't moved much in decades, much to the frustration of the more activist portion of the left. Note that people from other countries often see the Democratic Party as a center-right party.

The Democratic party deliberately moved right under Clinton. What was at the time called "triangulation" was Clinton adopting republican policy positions and one-upping them (e.g. welfare reform, NAFTA, Glass-Steagall). This drove the republicans crazy (remember Gingrich's Contract with America) and ever further right.

Agreed. And a later example is how the Affordable Care Act is essentially a Republican idea. But it's wild to think "they agreed with us too much" is seen as a plausible reason for radicalization.

More reputable sources find that polarization is largely symmetrical: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/section-1-gr...

That is not a more reputable source. The XKCD thing is a graph of highly regarded and more rigorous social science work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOMINATE_(scaling_method)

Further, I think the Pew stuff is flawed in a number of ways. One, it comes after the Reagan era, missing a time DW-NOMINATE shows as important to right-wing polarization. Two, it doesn't include the Trump era, when polarization hugely spiked. Third, and most important, 9 out of the 10 questions are not suited for directly measuring ideology. The one I think is actually a decent measure of ideology is "Homosexuality should be discouraged by society" vs "Homosexuality should be accepted by society". The rest of them are practical questions relative to the circumstances of the day. E.g., "The government today can't afford to do much more to help the needy" is a question that's explicitly about the current state of the budget. If the budget improves, then more people should answer that as yes regardless of ideology.

The measure I'd rather see is the extent of ideological litmus tests for access to power. E.g., look at the way the right's orthodoxy on abortion has hardened over the years. In the 1970s it was possible to be a pro-choice Republican and a pro-choice evangelical Christian. Now neither is acceptable, so much so that the most prominent Republican pro-choice group just gave up a few years back: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/opinion/abortion-rights-r...

Or you could look at the way large portions of the Republican party have polarized around things that are provably false, like that Trump won the 2020 election, that January 6th was a left-wing false flag, or that ivermetcin is a good way to treat covid. That is wildly asymmetrical polarization, and it drove litmus tests for Republican candidates across the country. Nothing similar exists on the left.

DW-NOMINATE didn't create the buckets "far-left", "left", etc. DW-NOMINATE is just a method of marking plots on a graph [1]. The categories of far-left, left, etc. come from drawing boundaries on that graph and giving everyone inside that region a label. Where to draw these boundaries hugely influences the results. Give someone else task of defining the boundaries and you can easily achieve the completely opposite result: like gerrymandering, you can define boundaries on the DW-NOMINATE chart to fit your desired outcome.

Furthermore, there's only 535 members of Congress, out of 300+ million Americans. DW-NOMINATE only examines a very very narrow segment of the population.

By comparison, the Pew survey was based on directly asking people their positions on various issues and measuring political uniformity. This didn't involve the highly subjective task of drawing regions on a chart and deciding these people are center left, these people are far left, etc. Instead it examined how likely people were to have uniform versus heterodox views. It also didn't exclusively study on politicians, it used representative sampling of the general population.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOMINATE_(scaling_method)#/med...

I think it's pretty funny you're acting like looking at the unrandom sample of elected officials is worse than grabbing assorted randos when trying to study politics. It's even funnier that you're taking people's off-the-cuff opinions given to a stranger stranger more seriously than you're taking the actual political behavior of passing laws. Believe what you like, I suppose, but I have a hard time taking you seriously here.

Pew is one of, if not the most respected polling organization in the US. By comparison, that XKCD chart is all just someone drawing boundaries on a chart. Just make the far left zone larger and shrink the far-right zone and voila you have the opposite result.

The Democrats are seen as right wing where I’m from.

You might note that XKCD stopped at 2012, so 10yrs of major change has happened since.

And 1/2 of the US has ideas that do not match the current left.

It's worth pointing out Elon is being disingenuous. He was pro-Democrat (not Left) when they were kowtowing to the tech industry and handing out green technology subsidies. Now that there's scepticism of Big Tech oligarchs and easy money has dried up he's pivoted to extreme right-libertarian to try and dismantle any regulation and dodge as many taxes as possible. He's also realized there's a marketing opportunity to rebrand his electric cars as alt-right. All those dudes with "fuck your prius" stickers on their f150s can now buy a model y to virtue signal to their pals.

"rebrand his electric cars as alt-right"? Seriously? I can see why there is such a division in society. I don't know anyone I'd consider alt-right, or alt-left for that matter. But you are able to channel his intentions. And you just branded pickup drivers as alt-right and characterized them as people who would buy electric cars for virtue signaling. I do know many pickup owners. Most do hard work, requiring pickups to transport tools, crews, equipment. Of those, the ones disparaging Priuses typically do so because they get stuck doing 10mph below the speed limit in the left lane while they are trying to get to a jobsite.

There's a concept for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Well there’s no “left” on the United States, so he’s partially right.

I don't know, has he always been a cheerleader for Trump? There are some things he is doing now that I don't remember him doing before that suggest his political stance has changed.

He believes that Trump should have the same broadcast rights that other political figures do, but he prefers DeSantis to Trump: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/elon-musk-ron...

But there's almost no difference between the two, politically speaking, so that doesn't mean much.

These days, I agree more with Republicans than Democrats. It used to be exclusively Democrats during Obama days.

I've always been a classical liberal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

These values are unthinkable for progressives today.

There's no way you came to this conclusion yourself, you need to get off the internet

Given the writer's handle and what I know about AI and GPT-3, it probably IS the internet!

You might add https://www.spiegel.de/international/ to your list. It is free and well written.

The good thing about Financial Times: It is a UK publisher, not US-based, so the reporting on the US is more skeptical and nuanced. Less screechy. To be fair, I avoid almost all of the opinion pieces except for Martin Wolf, because he is basically writing an economics column. The rest is rather inflammatory (much lower editorial standards!) and can can readily be skipped.

Also consider the free FT AlphaVille which is a blog attached to FT. Much more casual reporting style, but they have cracked some big cases, including Dan Mccrum's year-long (later explosive) investigation into Wirecard.

I'd stay far away from the Spiegel. While it has the reputation of a liberal magazine it actually started off as the mouthpiece of the BND. For some weird reason it got that reputation when it attacked Adenauer's policies when he and de Gaulle were working on bringing Germany and France closer together. While it somehow has retained this intellectual status to a lot of people it is an outrageous publication, with much better marketing than it has content. It has also hired more and more leadership from tabloids.

I'd look into Swiss or French publications. Although most of the French media has also unfortunately been pretty streamlined.

I second this. It’s mind boggling how bad DER SPEGEL does basic research. I did not find it surprising at all, that the Relotius-scandal^1 happened at DER SPIEGEL.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas_Relotius#Fabrication_of_...

... and was caught by Der Spiegel! From Wikipedia: "On 19 December 2018, Der Spiegel made public that Relotius had admitted that he had "falsified his articles on a grand scale", inventing facts, persons and quotations in at least 14 of his stories in Der Spiegel, an event now being referred to as Spiegelgate. The magazine uncovered the fraud after a co-author of one of Relotius's articles about a pro-Trump vigilante group in Arizona conducting patrols along the Mexico–United States border, the Spanish-born Spiegel journalist Juan Moreno, became suspicious of the veracity of Relotius's contributions and gathered evidence against him."

Wow, thanks for pointing out the international Spiegel. It seems much more substantial than the free German counterpart, at least in my first impression.

I thought of one more: How about The New Yorker? Yes, about 25-50% is dedicated to NYC, but the rest is incredibly varied and insanely well fact-checked. You won't find as much economic news, but you will find more science, arts, and long form profiles.

I don’t need to read the Economist any more because everything I needed to know was on this comment.

Very timely question, I just purchased an issue of the Economist because I was toying with the idea of re-instating a previously held subscription. I share the disappointment.

In the past, even just the book reviews were so good that they "forced" me to buy 2-3 of the reviewed books; that issue didn't intrigue me. I don't have an answer whether it's a general trend or not, as I'm trained not to ascribe too much weight to a sample of size N=1.

There's probably nothing better regardless, but I, for one, would like to see an alternative that is at the same quality level as the Economist (but with more neutral reporting and individual author names given) and an even wider scope (health, science, society, technology, geopolitics, finance, law, ...).

I subscribed the Guardian for one year just to avoid that it goes down (I could read it for free at work), and of course it is excellent, but it has a tacit pro-UK bias that brits (esp. leftists) wouldn't even notice. On the other hand they have excellent reporting and do not refrain from the most challenging topics like the Snowdon revelation (first published by The Guardian's New York office, for legal - freedom of speech - reasons).

Germany has Der Spiegel, France has Le Monde Diplomatique, but I think only the latter is available in English (I read German).

I would also enjoy paying for a single subscription that gave me online access to several of these top-tier magazine for a single flat-rate monthly or annual subscription price.

> …would like to see an alternative that is at the same quality level as the Economist (but with more neutral reporting and individual author names given)…

More publications should remove the byline. Individual attribution incentivises journalists to try and stand out which typically means making intentionally inflammatory statements.

Interesting, my first thought was that attribution will add accountability and authors would be more careful of their words.

The Times columnist who got cited in two mass shooter manifestos as an inspiration is still working.

Can you share more info on this? I want to read more about it, but a few google search didn't turn up anything.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/25/norway-melanie... ; I believe she was also cited by the guy who shot up a mosque in New Zealand.

Many journalists today seem more interested in increasing their Twitter followers than being accountable.

The literal exact opposite happens. Journalists without a byline or with a shrunken byline have little incentive to build up a brand as a trustworthy and thorough reporter because they will derive no benefit from their reputation. When their bosses lean on them to produce crap to gin pageviews up just before bonus season they therefore produce crap.

Media owners want this. They want journalism to be commodities because journalists with reputations can demand higher pay. They can then claim more of the profit.

The losers are the readers and the journalists.

In a sense it's the same process that is turning amazon products into shit. Without trustworthy reputation signals, the lowest common denominator rules.

>Journalists without a byline or with a shrunken byline have little incentive to build up a brand as a trustworthy and thorough reporter because they will derive no benefit from their reputation.

Or...journalists without a byline have little incentive to "build up a brand" through by appealing to a "side" or sketchy reporting. It cuts both ways.

They are incentivized to do that anyways as their employers chase clicks and views so as to massage the bottom line. Taking away bylines won't make a dent.

Taking away bylines simply takes away the incentive to actually be different and stand out for something else.

This doesn't necessarily mesh with what we see in reality though. The Economist doesn't use a byline and they're known as having very high quality content. Even if it's slipped a bit in recent years, it's slipped less than writing in general has. Writers who create their own brand tend to create echo chambers, because readers seek out those they trust (i.e. those who don't challenge the readers preconceived notions).

I think the biggest predictor of quality writing is the business model of the publication. Subscription based content is almost always superior. Anything that relies entirely on ad revenue is general hot garbage.

>This doesn't necessarily mesh with what we see in reality though. The Economist doesn't use a byline and they're known as having very high quality content.

A good way to see that it's not is to find out what investors or beltway policy elites would think and hunt for (entirely factual) things which might contradict their narrative.

I cited an example below of an article about github copilot that was hot garbage - like a starry eyed intern had watched an investor pitch.

On the war front one of the things which I have read in milbloggers is that a key goal of Russia's bombardment of the electricity network is to inhibit Ukrainian rail logistics and prevent the front from being resupplied. Is it working? Well, it was only ever "meant" to crack Ukrainian morale so they wouldnt even think to analyze that.

(good military reporting ought to have a bias towards logistics, but it rarely does...)

The goal of Russia's bombardments is to flood Europe with refugees, provoke civil unrests there and then bring to power Russia's puppets like AfD in Germany and the like.

The end goal is to undermine international support for Ukraine.

Hasn't EU immigration policy already flooded the EU with refugees..?

Not at the rate of several millions per month which is very likely to happen this winter. FYI, there are estimated 6.9 millions of internally displaced people in Ukraine already.

+1 for Le Monde Diplomatique. They also have localised variations with region-specific articles in addition to the translated main articles. The political orientation is to the left, but IMO it doesn't get in the way of the content.

> France has Le Monde Diplomatique

While Le Diplo's writers are usually top rate and the international outlook extraordinary for a French publication, the caricatural "anticapitalist" and anti-USA stance tint it too much to my taste - and I'm saying that as a French socialist !

Not sure how relevant to HN's audience, but I found out that a very good French magazine is So Foot. It's a sports magazine with really interesting articles and pretty well written, with a slight "political" tone interspersed here and there, if you know where to look (I'd say slightly veering left).

[1] https://www.sofoot.com/

  >I subscribed the Guardian for one year just to avoid that it goes down (I could read it for free at work), and of course it is excellent, but it has a tacit pro-UK bias that brits (esp. leftists) wouldn't even notice. On the other hand they have excellent reporting and do not refrain from the most challenging topics...

Funnily enough reading this thread [I don't read The Economist, BTW] I found myself thinking along similar lines as the OP re The Guardian [or the 'Grauniad' as it will forever be known by Private Eye[0] readers of a certain age].

When I originally used to read The 'Graun' back in the 80s 90s, it was a crusading paper which did cover 'challenging topics' --such as Britain's role in Northern Ireland, US bases in Europe, Britain's membership of NATO, nuclear disarmament, class struggle, etc. etc. ie. proper socialist politics.

Now, whenever I look at their website all I see are endless articles about racism, hompophobia, transgenderism... whether what X said on Twitter was racist... whether Y's opinion on sport is transgenderist etc. etc. Issues which the current crop of Guardian journalists probably think are terrifically 'crusading' and 'challenging' but which are just pushing at the same open door as every other 'right on' publication and website around and which I find tedious beyond measure. Virtue signalling trivia masquerading as crusading journalism.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_jokes_in_Private_Eye

Could you give examples of how quality has declined? I'm scared if a rag like Jacobin is in the running.

When people say that the quality of a publication has declined they often mean they disagree with things that are published. Many also say that they seek out blogs and other sources that I assume they agree with.

I read these publications because I often disagree with their opinion pieces. It's a value add. Why would I pay to read my own views regurgitated? It's a danger inherent in trying to micromanage and curate a very narrow source of information. You end up only ingesting things that you agree with.

My 2 cents. Sorry for the big edit

> When people say that the quality of a publication has declined they often mean they disagree with things that are published.

> a rag like Jacobin

Jacobin often uses flame bait writing style which I don't like even if it's something that I agree with. It's insulting to the reader.

Jacobin isn't just biased, it's agenda-driven. They're cheering specific outcomes and jeering others. To the parent comments' point, Jacobin is just an echo chamber for Socialists who want to hear Socialist opinions from other Socialists. That's different from wanting to read factual news and rational analysis from sources who believe climate change is real.

Every publication is agenda-driven, and nothing is more echo chambery than believing only your favorites are presenting “factual news and rational analysis.”

Having a bias (inevitable for humans) and having an agenda are two entirely different things.

No they aren't. That's cynical. Jacobin puts it right on their About Us page that they're Socialist news. I've been around a few newsrooms and most of them would riot if they were ever directed to represent an agenda. Even when there was a predominant political leaning.

How many of those newsrooms rioted during the decision to invade Iraq? One doesn’t need to be “directed to represent an agenda” in a competitive news environment, you don’t make it through the door without being a certain type of journalist to begin with.

One of the most frustrating obstacles in this conversation is people believing that being in the middle of the Overton Window makes you non-ideological. The idea of being ideological is offensive to people who believe that their view isn’t, which ironically is the hallmark of successful ideology. I’d point to Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher for further elaboration.

This reminds me of the David Foster Wallace joke of the fish who reply to “How’s the water?” with “What the hell is water?”

Rioting would be agenda. Actively reporting the facts when they directly contradict the political mainstream is good journalism. That mostly happened in the high brow press with a few notable exceptions. As someone who primarily read the NY Times in the early 2000s I was pretty well convinced the cassus belli in Iraq was spurious. Judith Miller notwithstanding. They also published the infamous Yellow cake op ed.

Reading the piece on how github copilot will automate developers out of a job made me chuckle. The reporter knew fuck all about copilot or AI, clearly hadn't talked to a developer who did. It was essentially regurgitated, reconstituted investor pitch.

This is pretty standard. If I wanna know what investors or beltway insiders are excited about or afraid of I read the Economist to see what kind of kool aid they're drinking.

I've discussed how I think the quality has decline elsewhere in the thread, but in short, they flip-flop so as to be on the "correct" side of the conversation too often instead of admitting fault, their UK/EU commentary has been of such a low quality I could find it in a tabloid newspaper if I wanted, and their general Anglo-centric view of the world is not valuable to me explicitly for the reason you describe; I'm British, I don't need more of a pro-UK narrative.

I put the Jacobin explicitly because I wanted to make it clear that I'm open to the whole political spectrum. I've read some good articles on there, as well as bad. I'm happy to be convinced out of subscribing to it. I've had a lot of people say it's a rag, but not explain how. Is it because it's poor journalism, or is it because it's socialist?

And no, it's not that I'm looking for validation of my own opinions. That's why I've put it out to a forum and not just picked the one most appealing to me.

I've found Tribune Magazine (https://tribunemag.co.uk/) a good source of well-written leftist opinions without the tone and US focus of Jacobin.

Jacobin’s editorial philosophy focuses on conversational writing to make the articles more accessible. This is intentionally different from the didactic style of The Economist or what I’d call the philosophical ramblings of the NYT or Atlantic.

It isn’t trying to be a publication that sounds smart or pretends to be unbiased, but that is the expectation most people have from economic and political writing. That plus the obvious political position makes it unpopular, but I’d argue the quality is just as good as any other major publication.

I’d say it’s important to keep it in your mix because you’re just not going to find views or analysis from that perspective otherwise.

> I've had a lot of people say [Jacobin is] a rag, but not explain how. Is it because it's poor journalism, or is it because it's socialist?

Anecdotally, I'm in sympathy with a lot of Jacobin's political viewpoints (even though I'm not as anti-capitalist, or at least anti-market, as they seem to be), but I have a lot of trouble really clicking with their style. They're far more opinion-driven than The Economist or even The Atlantic, and there's what I can only describe as a sneering subtext to much of the work by them I've been pointed to, e.g., "this premise is plainly true to anyone who isn't stupid and/or evil", when I'm sort of mentally raising my hand and going "wait, you are skipping work you really need to dedicate at least a few paragraphs to." It's the leftist version of the feeling I got reading C.S. Lewis decades ago.

> "this premise is plainly true to anyone who isn't stupid and/or evil"

You are dead on. I often sympathize and appreciate the core of their message but the presentation is off putting, to me anyway.

I go through cycles with the Economist, months when I can't stand it, and months when I read most pieces. Think it is me and the Economist. That said, I have not found any consistently better alternative in English or any of the other languages, so guess I am a lifer. But, I don't read pieces on current news in places I know well. My favorite section is letters to the editor. Like every time there is a piece on Singapore, the high commissioner will complain in the next issue.

One effect you might be experiencing is over-familiarity. I find magazines fascinating for a while, then you understand their house style, the quirks of the recurrent columns, their political stance, and you know what they are going to say even before you read. Even when they say the opposite of what you were expecting the reach their conclusion by travelling through territory you've been through many times before.

Weirdly, I've recently been experiencing this with Twitter. Every opinion unfolds mechanically. Even the curve balls are predictable at a statistical level.

Interesting point, I have definitely felt that with the New York Times, especially in terms of how it covers international stories. You can see the angle a mile away. The Economist is even more guilty of this because their editorial style is pretty upfront about their ideology. Every story can be summarized as "more free trade/less regulation would have prevented $currentDisaster"

I am long-time fun of Economist, but unfortunately the quality decreases. E.g. last issue EU is frozen and claim so many people will die in Europe due to high energy prices.

First, I find they did not explain their model well. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Second, the correlation does not imply causation or whether extrapolations are solid. It looks like there might be mistakes on that front and there are many spurious correlations (e.g. high energy in the past might mean high unemployment).

Third, so far the country experiencing freezing is the Ukraine due to power outages. Just one sentence mentioning, whether in Ukraine for sure many people are going to die due to distrusted power, heating or water supplies.

So far on general economics, I love: https://noahpinion.substack.com/

Though, it is hard for me to find comprehensive Economist replacement.

> First, I find they did not explain their model well. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It's not an extraordinary claim tho. Literally, every year old people die because of cold weather and not being able to afford the proper heating. This is basically old news. The cost of living "crisis" means that the price of energy is not becoming a matter for the average working person. This isn't really extraorinary to claim since salaries aren't exactly high and many people struggle to pay their bills by default with the price of food, energy, etc all going up while their salaries aren't going up then it clearly means some people will struggle to pay for the heating.

> Literally, every year old people die because of cold weather and not being able to afford the proper heating.

Yes, but the problem is not explaining that people aren't dying because of the cold itself. The way you wrote this and the way the media portrays the problem makes it sound like people will die from freezing to death, which is just not true.

Pretty much all reporting forgets to add the nuance that deaths in colder months increase because:

1. If it is colder, people are more likely to stay indoors and that increases viral infections

2. Cold makes our immune systems not work as well, which increases the chances of serious complications from infections

3. Cold environments keep viruses around for longer.

4. Cold weather also causes blood to thicken, which can lead to an increased chance of things like strokes (which then lead to higher death rates).

This is the nuance that reporting feels to present.

> makes it sound like people will die from freezing to death, which is just not true.

It's 100% true in my part of the US.

> The way you wrote this and the way the media portrays the problem makes it sound like people will die from freezing to death, which is just not true.

This is true. Old people freeze to death every year.

I agree that more people will die, but the Economist claim is that 100k more will die: " Hence the energy crunch this year could cause over 100,000 extra deaths of elderly people across Europe. "

Article shows some modelling, but I was not convinced and can point some holes: https://www.economist.com/interactive/graphic-detail/2022/11...

Economist usually has some seriously bizarre articles about EU with a massive pro-USA bias when attempting any analysis. That ultimately made me stop reading it since it's not a very useful viewpoint if you actually live in Europe.

Any examples? I'm a European with a pretty chauvinistic pro-EU meh-USA attitude and I've never found the Economist's Europe section to be "bizarre" (been reading for about a year)

> EU is frozen and claim so many people will die in Europe due to high energy prices.

This complaint is one that (jokingly) makes me ask if you're new around here. the Economist is almost pathologically pessimist. I sometimes think they should call themselves _The Cassandra_, as they are constantly forecasting doom over every scenario.

I enjoy how they summarize background information and the candor of their analysis, but when it gets time to make long-term predictions I tune them out because they're about 0-50 on the number of times I should have been walking knee deep through rivers of bodies and economic collapse.

Interesting, on Twitter Noah Smith has become a laughing stock.

I will say that generally, non-print media like Substack, personal blogs and Twitter can be a much higher quality replacement. Requires a little digging though.

I've found the opposite. Print media publications seem to be higher quality with better editorial review. There are of course exceptions and outstanding blogs out there.

I've seen some reporters go from working at a "big" publisher to Substack and I can tell the difference in their writing. Usually more extreme and alarmist. I chalk it up to less review.

I agree the individual pieces are less polished and tend more towards alarmism or outrage. I still find it overall better, because logical inconsistencies and wrong facts will get called out viciously and without mercy. The result is a more correct worldview, but one needs to keep some distance, otherwise it can get unhealthy.

Its the difference between a university debate club and an MMA cage. The MMA filter is much stronger, but there tends to be a lot more blood.

> logical inconsistencies and wrong facts will get called out viciously and without mercy

Even here, inaccuracies are promoted as fact regularly. I don't count on the social media herd as a compass.

Other than this site I avoid news that comes with a comment section because internet anons have their own biases and agendas and aren't representative.

You end up with nuance swept aside and extreme unflinching loudmouths getting the most visibility. A lot of this goes hand in hand with quitting social media.

The print media is getting increasingly biased as well though! The NYT used to be the „paper of record“, not anymore.

Just a personal opinion, but I'd characterize Noah Smith as "uneven", not "laughingstock". He hits enough high notes that I would be quite sad to see him go, even though I find him very unreliable.

> E.g. last issue EU is frozen and claim so many people will die in Europe due to high energy prices.

I haven't seen the article, but it's not a _completely_ outlandish idea; consumer energy prices are up a lot, and in countries where governments haven't taken step to subsidise and/or control energy costs, particularly for elderly people, you would expect deaths.

Now, in practice most countries _have_ taken such steps; if that was left out of the article that would certainly be a concern.

I took out an Economist subscription for the first time this year, and I've found it really mixed. Lots of interesting articles, but I'll agree the analysis isn't as good as many other sources I've seen (in my view).

What's the bigger blocker for me is the anti-LGBT+ lean. For example the most recent article on trans rights: November 19th - 25th 2022 issue, "Transgressions", page 29 in print. It's not even the insidious "see both sides" argument you see often, but just unbalanced rehash of old claims with no analysis, research, or further thought. In the same issue, The Economist jumped to the defence of Qatar (“In defence of Qatar”, page 18 in print) with the argument that while Qatar was terrible for LGBT+ rights, so have been pervious world cup holders. To me that’s not even an argument, that’s just a defeatist “oh well it was bad before so why bother complaining”.

I’m all for accepting viewpoints that are different from my own, but when it comes to “should LGBT+ people have rights” that’s not up for debate.

Seconding this.

I cancelled my subscription quite a few years ago in light of the low quality of analysis in the UK section of the paper - it felt like tabloid journalism aimed at people who thought too highly of their class status and level of education to deign to read a real tabloid, yet essentially at the same level of insight, peppered with a few affected rhetorical flourishes conveying an aesthetic of educated sophistication.

It’s very much a newspaper designed to give people without the time or inclination to develop a substantial understanding of an issue a quite superficial overview, packaged alongside an opinion that can be regurgitated as required to give the impression that one has a respectable understanding of the matter in question (at the very least, outside some of its more detailed feature articles).

…Even in light of that, the rapidity of the decline in its coverage of LGBT+ human rights has been extraordinary, even by UK standards. The fact that prominent editorial staff at the newspaper (Helen Joyce, for one) are extremely prominent anti-transgender activists probably has something to do with it - but the sheer venom of its coverage really took me aback when I started following its current turn. The issue certainly isn’t specific to it, given the broader anti-trans/LGBT+ turn in the UK press as a whole, but the Economist stands out as one of the worst for it.

Just looked her up briefly. The pieces seem to fall in place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Joyce

Oh, yeah, for about two months any time I opened Facebook (in fairness, once a week) it was pushing that article at me. Really lowered my opinion of the Economist; a very low quality article more befitting of something like the Telegraph.

Same here. They published some bad article on trans rights, a few weeks before my subscription was up for renewal. It wasn't really something I could support. Cancelled after 15 years or so

I enjoy the Economist (haven't noticed any change in quality), and if I had time for a second source I would probably be leaning towards the New Statesman. I somewhat foolishly subscribed to the New European after learning about it on "The Rest is Politics" (podcast with Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell); it is unashamedly far-left and mostly just full of rants - so I wouldn't recommend that.

I think others have given good recommendations, but will add the Atlantic and New Yorker.

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.

I kinda have the exact same experience with The Atlantic as OP does with The Economist. I used to read it regularly but now it feels there's 5% good articles and 95% some kind of highbrow clickbait.

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.

There is a difference in the online content of the Atlantic v. the print magazine. The print magazine still has some high quality content.

Don't they ultimately publish the same stuff in both?

I would definitely appreciate a quality/triviality filter though, maybe the print is the only way to get it.

I think that everything that's in print is available on the web site, but there are also web-only things, so the print magazine may be a bit of a "quality/triviality filter" in that regard.

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.)

I think they're mostly conventional these days, but the pieces aren't that strong whether they're conventional or contrarian.

No, there is a lot of online-only content. I believe there's a daily email with new content, and often that content is quite weak compared to what's in the print version.

This is a selection of about 60 story links on the front page. The story about cats is about people paying thousands for organ transplants for pets, which is somewhat intriguing and new to me.

The Financial Times is simply excellent. In my opinion it's substantially better than what even The Economist used to be like ~10 years ago. Almost every article has high quality, there's no clickbait content and the coverage of topics is very appropriate for someone who wants to keep informed on geopolitics and international finance. Though it's not as broad as what The Economist covers, you won't find as much coverage of developing nations.

I fully agree. Their China and EU coverage is exceptional. I read FT every single day.

The alternative to The Economist is a well curated collection of RSS feeds. Identify a set of intelligent blogs/columnists who post regularly, put their feeds into an OPML file, and you have a great alternative.

Added bonus: you can have X and anti-X perspectives for most values of X.

This is the best answer so far. I would add that a researcher/blogger/columnist well versed in the languages/industries/topics they write about, and fusing together and referencing data sources used to form their commentary/view is optimal.

For example, the recent Economist article "In Ukraine, living as normal is an act of defiance"[1] presents a view of everyday civilian life in Kyiv but offers no references or links to anything of substance.

This article would be much more useful and interesting if it provided references, data (as opposed to anecdotes from interviews of a few people) and visual information at both macro and micro levels. For example, the following types of information could be useful in answering the question of "what is life currently like in Kyiv?":

1. A picture showing the rate of growth of "Point of Unbreakability" sites across Ukraine[2] alongside links to videos of a few sites being toured (to show an example of what they typically look like).

2. A link to daily reports on the Ukraine energy grids[3] and a graphical map of changes in energy availability over time.

3. Recent walking tours of Ukrainian cities.

4. A link to retail pricing and availability of a generator or typical basket of groceries and a graph showing changes over time. Or a video tour of typical supermarkets or retail outlets showing the effect of the war on supply of goods[4][5].

Some journalists at media outlets do provide well researched articles from time to time filled with graphs, maps and tables of data[6] but they still generally don't add references and photos/videos. I find this is particularly true for articles that frustratingly claim "New research from the University of Something shows ..." yet there is no mention of the paper title or link to the article in an open journal. Or any reporting on legislation or legal matters--would it be so difficult to link to case information on a court system, link to a bill presented before parliament, etc?

[1] https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/11/23/in-ukraine-livin...

[2] https://nezlamnist-gov-ua.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_t...

[3] https://dixigroup.org/en/analytic/russian-war-against-ukrain...

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzO0ikUcL-c

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzsEdRLML5E

[6] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-10-19/maplab... (example relating to how some media outlets have been using satellite imagery during the Ukraine war, also see 'Map Links' at the bottom for more examples)

Just a PSA for anyone in the US, typically your public library will have access to digital products like Libby or Flipster. These products typically include access magazines (such as the Economist), newspapers and websites for free.

As to OPs question, I typically try to use an array of sources for news and try to support publications that I cannot access freely / through other means or feel strongly about supporting (such as local news and publications like Harpers).

Also, your public library may have videos games.

Sadly, my library system's collection of Switch games is missing the Kibry franchise. But it does have Smash Bros which has been a lot of fun.

Also, if you live near the border of a state with a better library system than yours, check if you can get a non-resident library card (you may have to pay).

Also, if you have young children, check out https://imaginationlibrary.com/ from Dolly Parton. It's a free program that will mail your child a free book every month up until their 5th birthday.

I bailed on the Economist a couple of years ago after at least a couple decades...thought I was the only one who felt it had declined. I haven't really found a good replacement still.

If nothing else, the pain they put me through to end the subscription was enough to prevent me from ever signing up again.

Their “customer retention” process is extremely aggressive, even by most traditional print publications’ standards.

I canceled recently and had to escalate to “I have told you to cancel three times and if you cannot cancel now I will have to dispute the charges with my credit card company.”

Been there. It's not just the economist, most services that include the node "Send an email to unsubscribe" are a problem for me.

I'm paying everyone via paypal and just cancel the paypal subscription without ever bothering replying to any email. That works wonders :-)

I have recently bailed too - I was subjected to multiple exit interviews when cancelling my subscription (two online and one over the phone). This certainly put me right off resubscribing at any point in the future.

You should see the unsubscribe process of FAZ and SZ in Germany. It is like signing up to a gym or a phone contract. FAZ does not even accept credit cards! they want your IBAN and approval for them to charge you every month (like an utility bill) for one year. Then if you forget to cancel x days in advance it restarts.

And wasn't there a law (in EU) that signing up should be as easy and cancelling, if anyone remembers. Most of them allow signup via website but ask you to call to cancel (even after cancelling online, SZ).

I say this as a previous subscriber to FAZ, SZ, and the Economist.

If you’re in the UK, your local library may have access to the Economist as an online magazine

My county’s libraries use Libby, and I get to read The Economist and many other magazine ‘for free’ (reality is my council and other taxes pay for it but you get my drift)

This is also true in the US, where Libby is common too. I read the Economist, the New Yorker, and the New York Review of Books for free that way -- the Washington DC public library system (which even people living in the DC suburbs can get a library card to) subscribes, for example.

I'm fine with The Economist's Classical Liberal POV (per Adam Smith et al). I unsubscribed become of their support for the Iraq War. (Which admittedly they regretted some years later. But I won't forgive them.)

Fortunately, Western media (at least) is flush with Classical Liberal POV. So it's not like I suffered from the omission.

As for challenging and interesting and immediately relevant, I keep returning to David Roberts' Volts podcast. Explains where the rubber meets the road on the most important topic of the day, climate crisis. The explainers are just terrific. The episodes about the US's Inflation Reduction Act, the most important industrial policy legislation in a generation, have been illuminating. https://www.volts.wtf Of course, economics is central to the whole story.

As for a non-center-right take on economic issues, I'm enjoying Bethany McLean's work. Most recently her podcast Capitalisn't. https://www.capitalisnt.com (Her cohost Luigi Zingales is mostly a dink, so I speed thru his monologuing.)

I haven't really found a leftist economics narrative to consume. Two years ago, I binged on some MMT stuff. Alas, it still feels too fledgling, too exploratory. In short, I'm eager for narratives with some predictive power.

I'm almost certain u/dredmorbius can offer awesome recommendations. Their smart about about this kind of stuff.

Oh. The books Mine: The Hidden Rules of Ownership and Debt: The First 5000 Years were fun. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54226795-mine https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6617037-debt Sadly, I haven't gotten to Piketty's books yet.

Oops.

*They're smart

Guessing you're British or a UK resident?

If you're not reading Private Eye already I would highly recommend it.

Yeah, Private Eye pretty much the only essential publication in the UK for me.

Satire and comedy panel shows (HIGNFY, Mock the Week, Daily Mash, etc.) have been a major source of news and debate for me over the last decade or so. The BBC appear to be reflecting this by cancelling all news related comedy shows on TV -- presumably following pressure from the Tory government? The BBC also appear to have put a month-delay on podcasts which prevents them from helping u inform opinions on recent news. These things limit democracy, IMO. I've found such shows (in the same way as Private Eye) will lampoon anyone and so seem quite well balanced.

This all just seems to be one more data point on the chart that shows our UK government to be quite fascist.

I believe the podcast delay is just for independent clients - you can still get stuff on they day if you use the BBC Sounds app. It's just a ploy to get more people on their app.

I agree with much of that, apart from the last paragraph but I think it is more likely that any deterioration of programming - while possibly coming from new pressure (including unwelcome political pressure from the government) - is indicative of a lack of depth in talent across the political spectrum that is exposed under the new light.

This has been clear for years, but perhaps there is a new urgency at the top to impress their new masters.

A lot of British comedians - at least those trying to be topical, frankly suck, with no obvious reason for their rise to fame over your average pub "wit" beyond plugging away, saying the right things, and being chums with the right people; the stronger shows succeeding despite their presence rather than because of them.

> The BBC also appear to have put a month-delay on podcasts which prevents them from helping u inform opinions on recent news.

Through what mechanism is the BBC able to delay podcasts?

They make it available only on their app for a month, then publish it for everyone. It's just a commercial choice to capture more listeners for their apps.

Mock the Week was recently cancelled.

I think the thing that will suit you most is probably the FT. It's a similar grown-up feeling paper with a strong financial lean but still covers general interest news in a clear way. It's one of the few newspapers that I read that still has some longer form content.

I see that you're UK based -- If you still have an active UK university email, you can usually get a subscription for free. See this page for details: https://enterprise.ft.com/ft-education-resources/licence-fin...

I'm a FT subscriber, and I can also recommend the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (https://nzz.ch/english).

They tend to have excellent data-driven reporting, and substantive articles.

For me the main problem with most of these publications is that although oftentimes they couch things in data and science they are mostly opinion-based so their prognostications are quite fallible. They remind me of the "The Standard" and "Business 2.0" etc., of the aughts. While things were going up, they seemed to catch the wave and ride it, but as the bubble burst their faults due to lack of any underlying structure or rigor became evident.

So too with The Economist, not to speak of things like The Atlantic etc., who rely mostly on opinion or tenuous data.

Now, often The Economist tries to rely on some science/data but they have their own ideology and that leads to them making mistakes as well. I wish they relied more on science and data over ideology (such as free markets or globalization, etc., not to say those are bad, but just have some skepticism and criticism. They often took globalization to be an unqualified good)

What are your thoughts on the journalism in The Atlantic?

https://www.theatlantic.com/

I’ve let my subscription to the Atlantic lapse. The writing quality and topic selection are closer to a second-tier college newspaper than a serious journalistic publication.

Most of their talented contributors are mostly gone, and the current crop of “cool kid” writers seem to just regurgitate what they are following on Twitter.

It's yet another news outlet purchased by a tech billionaire. Happened in 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurene_Powell_Jobs

She's also been friends and sometimes business partners for decades with Carlos Watson, the guy who perpetrated the OZY fraud. That may help if you want an idea of her taste in, and ability to evaluate the quality of, journalism.

What are your options to make yourself a going concern as a media company in 2022?

Become a tech company, like the NY Times (separate subscriptions for cooking & games, affiliate via Wirecutter, get into podcasts, newsletters, etc.) - they've kind of Buzzfeed-ified themselves.

Or get a rich patron. The latter has worked for decades for money-losing conservative journals. (For interesting anecdata about one of them, check out this analysis of Commentary: https://danielstone.substack.com/p/commentary-finances-john-...)

The journalism in The Atlantic is quite frankly garbage and they are essentially importing outrage directly from Twitter to riddle their articles with ads so they can continue to grift their subscription plan.

I've found it to be pretty on par with the Economist, but more US focused with a bit more clickbait. I've read some great articles on there, but wouldn't be in any rush to subscribe.

Are you reading Le Monde Diplomatique in French? If so, you might enjoy Courrier International.

I was a longtime subscriber of Courrier Internationale, in print. The issue is if many articles are originally in English then I feel like they should be read in English to avoid the nuances lost in translation. Second issue was the latency: the translation process first then getting it in print. The topic has to be a bit evergreen otherwise I feel the world has already moved on.

Always been a fan of Harper's for a more left/artistic perspective.

I've just renewed my subscription. I haven't found anything better than The Economist. Their daily news summary is great.

What a timely post. My subscription to "The Atlantic" is coming up for renewal in a few months, and I plan to simply let it lapse. That was my last magazine subscription left standing, and 2023 will be the first time in roughly 40 years that I won't be subscripting to any magazines.

The writing has always been center-left, but with introspective tendencies. Articles would generally critique conservative political positions, but thoughtfully in a well-reasoned manner. And they would be just as likely to examine excesses from the cultural left also.

After Trump entered office, the magazine began a rapid descent. Today you find as much "clickbait" in the printed magazine as you do on the web property (they were previously quite distinct). Articles are frequently hyperbolic, and read like Reddit comments on /r/LateStageCapitalism. But most damningly, the REASONING seems to be gone now. It feels like reading a propaganda outlet.

Maybe this is an artifact of emerging authors coming of age during the social media era? Maybe it's a byproduct of print media's financial decline, and pressure to compete with online entertainment? Whatever the case may be, everything feels like a lazy echo chamber now. I dearly miss writing that makes me think.

Are you me? Am I you? Couldn’t have said it better myself.

I tend to read authors instead of publications now.

Like just about anything by Ed Yong (science), Zeynep Tufekci, Katelyn Jetelina when looking at pandemic related topics. They are objective, thoughtful, compassionate, and well researched.

But slowly finding writers like that for other topics. Open to suggestions!

It’s digital only, but https://www.slowernews.com/ is worth a look

Wall Street Journal (except the op-ed pages, which are comically extreme). Financial Times is also very good, I prefer WSJ.

They provide actual reporting and not just narrative; WSJ reporting broke the news of the Theranos fraud for example.

I used to subscribe but at some point as a free market believer I have to put my money where my mouth is and not fund ANY Murdoch enterprises.

If it heads in a Fox News or UK Sun type of direction, I'm gone. But for the time being, it really is one of the few sources of high-quality business coverage. That's partially why it's so inordinately expensive compared to other papers.

I think the only real alternative is the FT. Yes, it's not a weekly but they have lots of in-depth reporting (and the Economist refers to itself as a newspaper anyway).

If only there were a weekly version of the FT...

FT is good and seems to be getting better.

Financial Times[1] is my primary source of high-quality European and international news. Politico Europe[2] and WSJ[3] come next.

I also recommend Spiegel International[4], Le Monde Diplomatique[5], and Nikkei Asia[6] for the German, French, and Japanese perspectives respectively.

[1] https://ft.com

[2] https://politico.eu

[3] https://wsj.com

[4] https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe

[5] https://mondediplo.com

[6] https://asia.nikkei.com

Another vote for FT (Financial Times). It has good insights not just on economics and politics but also has decent coverage of topics on AI, Travel, and Science.

I was in a similar place, an Economist subscriber, that stopped ~5yrs ago due to a decrease in writing quality. I switched to:

Financial Times - lead newspaper into Wirecard scandal

Süddeutsche Zeitung (in German) - famed for Panama Papers investigation

I complement it with readings from:

IEEE Spectrum (Science & Tech)

The Markup (Society)

Had you considered that this might be a macro problem? The last several decades had a stable narrative with special places for certain institutions. With the narrative world order unwinding, institutions are having a hard time seeming authoritative (despite desperate attempts) because they cannot figure out the “right” new narratives. If this diagnosis is correct, you are unlikely to find much satisfaction from shifting sources — it’s the end of an era, and a whiplash from the last few decades of “over stability” ignoring several distinct changes and having them pile up and bubble out all at once.

I read Bloomberg and listen to CNBC. I think at bottom knowing what’s really happening matters to finance peoples’ bottom lines, and that has a way of focusing the mind and cutting through partisan blinders.

>It doesn't align exactly with my political values but I've always found the writing to be of high quality

I'm just going to throw it out there that maybe your political values are beginning to overwhelm your other opinions?

The Economist's content is unique outside of, maybe, the Financial Times in your list. You're certainly not going to find much similarity with The Jacobin, they're polar opposites politically.

The best replacement for The Economist is probably a major newspaper.

They did indicate that quality of writing is more important than agreeable opinions.

I take the same view in subscribing to Private Eye.

I agree with others that I don't understand where you're coming from in some sort of decline or big change in The Economist. Maybe if you're overly obsessed with the editorials, which I've always skipped, something has changed. But the basic news reporting remains more or less the same as it has been for the 5+ years I've been subscribing.

I subscribed to Le Monde Diplomatique for a year and rarely found more than 1 or 2 articles a month that were interesting info I couldn't get elsewhere.

I subscribe to Foreign Affairs and find it to be 80% boring junk on the same set of topics about the rise of China, what to do about Russia, etc. The occasional article or book review on a less covered country makes it sort of worth the subscription price to me.

If you're just looking for something like "interesting book reviews," I'd take a look at the Literary Review. Or maybe the Times Literary Supplement. And New York Review of Books and London Review of Books offer much more in-depth reviews, but reading between the lines it seems like the op is saying The Economist is too liberal for them and is not going to like the tenor of most of what's in these.

Another option I guess is Bloomberg Businessweek which has at least some of the same news coverage as The Economist. But if you're not liking The Economist for having too much opinion you don't agree with, I'm guessing you won't like Businessweek. (You can usually find a print sub to Businessweek that's a lot less than a regular Bloomberg one).

What narrative manipulation have you seen from The Economist? I haven’t noticed it so perhaps I am being manipulated! I’d love to hear your insight!

The Economist has always, since its foundation, been capital-L Liberal. That's the lens through which everything is written.

Knowing that informs you about the selection of topics they cover and the angles they will take. It doesn't make it bad - I read it for years although gave up mid-2010s - but it can be quite predictable. It's still capable of producing very high quality and thoughtful writing, which makes it more annoying when they choose not to.

Recommendation: maybe the FT?

I’m very aware of political and economic lens of The Economist as I’ve been a subscriber for over two decades.

I haven’t noticed a change other than a bit of a shift leftwards since Zanny became editor-in-chief, but I don’t mind one bit, as they haven’t lost the writers that promote classical liberalism, just added a bit of an internal critique of some aspects of academic economics.

But I’m very open to the idea that I’m missing something… especially since I’m such a fanboy!

The way they discuss the UK/EU dynamic rankles me. They spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about Europe, while talking about the UK as if it's on the cusp of a new age.

I also loathe their coverage of the UK budget. It's a personally belief that George Osbourne's tenure in government has single-handedly sent the UK in a seemingly bottomless downward spiral back into 1970's Britain. He delivered his budget based on short-term fixes and populist gambits. The Economist talk about him and his policies as if he were some misunderstood hero of the age, and laud the absurd austerity measures of that government. Liz Truss recycles those same policies of tax cuts to the those who need it least, and the Economist does the same; that is, until the whole market finally comes crashing down. They back track as fast as they can, trying to distance themselves from her, talking about "how they would have done differently". It just seems so two-faced.

These are just a couple of examples but in summary, when their own fundamental beliefs are shown to fail, be it social or economic, they change tact so as to appear in the right instead of owning up and admitting any fault.

I should have added “in the last year” to make it explicit that I was directly responding to OP when they said they had noticed a shift “in the last year”. I haven’t noticed this shift! The shift I did notice was when Zanny took over as editor-in-chief a few years back.

That's sort of my point. It's something I've noticed in articles in the past year or so. This ballet around sticking to their free market principles, while also distancing themselves from discussing the matter when it fails. Looking through older issues, I can spot a few where they've gone "we got it wrong, this is what position we will take this time". There's a distinct lack of ownership in recent ones.

Anything that they write about France (or southern europe in general) is utter crap and often disproven by reality a few years later. It reeks of anglosaxon exceptionalism.

Well that’s nothing new!

They were and are right about Berlusconi though.

From what I've casually noticed, in recent years they declared the EU dead at least 4 or 5 times and the bias towards some kind of Liberal US/UK lead/controlled World is clear. They are liberal and anglo, so of course the bias is there ( also smug, but that's pretty much since their beginnings) , but they try to pass their views as fact, meaning: "There's chat going around, this is what the reality is and will be.."

They ( as many others ), didn't view Ukraine fighting back and Western help as a good thing, Ukraine capitulation was "the right thing to happen" because for them Russia controlling Ukraine was a "fact of life". All this while their authors try to project an image of unmatched economic prowess but also rock-solid morals..

I didn't notice any bias towards Russia in The Economist, quite the contrary. Their March 31st issue was titled "Why Ukraine must win".

https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2022-04-02

> They ( as many others ), didn't view Ukraine fighting back and Western help as a good thing, Ukraine capitulation was "the right thing to happen"

Nearly every issue since February this year has contained calls to support Ukraine, titles like "Why Ukraine must win" and so on. They're very hawkish pro a Ukraine all-out victory, often describing Ukraine as fighting for all of Europe's (or even the entire West's) freedom.

You seem to view things with a very broad brush, did you actually read the magazine or just peruse?

Just as an example, did you read the things Mearsheimer wrote?

Since this Economist thing has become a quagmire due to Ukraine ( my fault for bring it up ), I reiterate my point:

I don't really have anything against them, not even their biases. I do get pissed when they somehow ride their wave of superiority when in fact they are pretty much mainstream. Yeah, they are better than the DailyMail, but not by the amount they project.

> You seem to view things with a very broad brush, did you actually read the magazine

Yes, the print edition. Care to actually rebuke my arguments instead of making assumptions?

> Just as an example, did you read the things Mearsheimer wrote?

I googled this because I was confused because I could not remember seeing his ideas there (which I remember finding totally ridiculous). Turns out this was a "by invitation" section, clearly presented as an outside opinion. I haven't seen them reiterate his ideas anywhere (which I'd summarize as "it's totally OK for powerful countries to scare neighbours into becoming 'buffer zone' client states without any say in the matter"), they're very much for Ukraine's ability to determine their own future.

If you're angry about a paper publishing opinion pieces you're going to be angry about just about every paper out there because every one of them is going to sooner or later publish an opinion piece that you disagree with. That's the whole idea of opinion sections.

You must be reading a different magazine than I have because The Economist has been writing a lot about the need for the US and the West to provide military and economic aid in support of Ukraine!

Yeah, I've been ready the magazine for more than a couple years.

When "nothing is gonna happen" and business was good, there was the need to "support"/sell Ukraine stuff. When shit got real "It was important for the World to don't confront Russia and let it be", when Russia flubbed the military support for Ukraine needed to be much more! more!.

I'm sure now that the war is extensive but also will be long, they'll try to push the "Listen.. you have to broke a deal with Putin."

Every take they had over the years is in line with pretty much every tabloid. My main criticism is they pretend they are something else, some high society deep thinkers, when in reality they are not. They've missed every economic crash and found every one of it the same way all the others did.

This guy over on https://indica.medium.com/how-the-economist-is-just-propagan... comes up with a healthy analysis of exactly that.

The writing here is so pathetically dramatic I suggest you wait a decade or so before recommending an article again.

Project-syndicate is a great option:

https://www.project-syndicate.org/

I’ve also enjoyed Adam tooze’s newsletter after seeing it crop up on hacker news lately:

https://adamtooze.substack.com

I used to be an Financial Times fanboy, but sad to say, it’s been going downhill for some time now , for news stories I should add. I used to get the economist, but found with my work rotation (4-6 week remote areas) - I was simply not reading it, then I was intrigued by a colleague reading the spectator- never really my politics, but I gave it a read and have been reading it since, I would read private eye if I could get it (not seen it in Vietnam). I also now read the telegraph- that and spectator and FT all online, again, I take a contrary bevies on any political bias, but the writing is good and enjoyable. Maybe I should take another look at the economist- in the past it was superb, it excelled in all fields, often better than supposedly specialised magazines (yeah - I ditched new scientist soon after graduating)!

This older comment I made a while ago might come in handy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28911253

E: It is basically a somewhat long list of newspapers and periodicals from across the world.

Non-western publications of possible interest:

https://asiatimes.com/ in english, mostly free

https://www.jeuneafrique.com/ in french, subscription

While I too enjoy Der Spiegel, the Economist is fairly unique in that it has a classical liberal and globalist slant. There's much less nationalistic perspective in their reporting which can be a breath of fresh air.

Lately I've enjoyed Politico for at least sometimes sharing this ambition. It's very US-centric, even in the Politico EU variant, but there's far less national exceptionalism than its peers in my opinion.

I completely agree that the Economist has been slowly declining in quality over the last decade, which saddens me. Clickbaiting is a universal problem now, and I don't think there's any direct competitor that's better. I've come to terms with diversifying my reading list and reading much less of each instead.

I feel like I asked HN the same question about the Economist a couple years ago. I still really appreciate its broad approach to world news and its slanted-but-two-sided view of politics. Honestly the replacement you're looking for to understand international reality is probably some mix of very costly Stratfor briefings and France24 and DW. (Jacobin? seriously? is al Jazeera too well sourced for you?) Internal US politics aren't covered very well by the Economist so you won't be missing to much by switching to this blend, and most US politics can unfortunately be inferred six months in the future by watching other nascent authoritarian states anyway.

Wait for it... Dang is gonna ban me again. BUT I'M DRUNK! Damn it.

I put the Jacobin there to make it clear I'm open to good writing from anywhere on the political spectrum. I've read some good stuff from them, and drivel in equal measure, but I find the same with the Economist. I'm looking to try something new and I'm not against a socialist perspective.

I didn't put Al Jazeera because I would be against an Qatari monarchist perspective.

I know, but I drew the equivalence because both - like so many propaganda organs of the right, left, monarchists, CCP, putinists or any other set of dishonest shills posing as journalists - share in common the defining feature that nothing they say can be trusted to be objective reporting of fact. A perspective would imply an acknowledgement of an external reality, with objective facts, which might then be open to various arguable interpretations. That's not what's presented by either of those outlets; it is, however, what makes the Economist somewhat interesting.

Bending facts, rather than reporting them and then commenting on them, is not "perspective" except in the most recent and/or Orwellian sense of the word.

Some people do read Playboy for the articles. In fact, I did read a Lee Iaccoca interview in Playboy once, it was excellent from what I remember. OP might want to seriously consider looking into that often-pigeonholed publication.

I had subscribed to the economist and it was a nightmare to cancel the subscription (they expected a phone call and would not accept a cancellation by email). I will never ever subscribe the economist again for dark patterns

I follow Nikkei very frequently for tech news and I enjoy Barron's for market viewpoints.

My view is that Western Europe has become less relevant to North American culture, technology, and finance over the past five or so years. Latin America and Asia are now far more relevant to North American life and the future thereof.

I share your thoughts about the Economist and I feel it has gone downhill. I wonder how much of that is due to the cultural and economic decline of the UK and the public narrative shift accompanying that decline. Brexit brought some very unsavory and counterproductive sentiments to the fore.

Curious, have you tried to see where the authors of the articles you like before went?

You can always follow them instead of following the publication.

If they're still there, then perhaps it's a sign that it's management

The Economist rarely puts names to articles. They're all written from the same "economist" point of view.

I haven't seen it mentioned, but whenever I read articles from Foreign Affairs, I'm quite impressed. Though of course the focus is, as you may imagine, foreign affairs...

I share your sentiment re Economist.

The Times Literay Supplement is high quality and always interesting. Everything is through the prism of book reviews so perhaps not as much current affairs as you’d like. But still worth looking at.

Politico.eu has a weekly "print edition" (you can download the pdf from their site) and I feel it's not too far from The Economist in terms of subject matter, and goes into more depth for EU issues. The writing quality isn't as good though. Not sure what their political leaning is.

The New Statesman isn't bad but has some problems: delivery delays to the US (maybe not an issue for you) and lots of "advertorials". The writing quality is usually good. It has a left/labour leaning.

The Week is a bit more balanced- but you might find it better to set up a RSS reader and get info from different sources (I have used Inoreader Pro for a 4-5 years now and love it)

Had a quick look and couldn’t see this suggestion anywhere else so apologies if is has already been mentioned. Why not bypass these kinds of magazines all together and subscribe to a few writers or publications on substack? There is some very high quality stuff on there and you can explore your particular interests deeper. Some good places to start might be the Pragmatic Engineer for tech posts and Glenn Greenwald for investigative journalism.

Not quite a replacement given that it's quarterly, but the nascent Asterisk Mag seems like it would at least fill the long-form essay niche: https://asteriskmag.com/

I'm still a serious economist reader and podcast listener, especially for their special reports, but I've also started to rely more and more on a curated RSS feed of substacks & blogs.

It's really crazy to see that the infamous Rothschild family has a 25% stake in this magazine. Not to mention obscure European shell companies, holding God-knows-what else.

>Owners:

    Exor N.V. (43.40%)
    Rothschild
    Cadbury
    Schroder
    Layton[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group

All of them have sunken to clickbait articles and titles IMO - case in point: https://www.ft.com/content/5a8d439b-da0f-41c0-9e6b-e857a75c2... (although the article itself is alright, even if quite brief).

I think you're better off just getting access to specific long read articles when they're released.

The perceived decline in quality might just be caused by a very real increase in the quality of ‘amateur’ journalism.

I noticed this both during covid and Ukraine coverage. The quality of journalism that is now available online is in my opinion much greater than any news organisation can put out. Often because the amateur journalist are people covering event from on the ground as it is happening.

I think Le Monde Diplomatique could be a good choice

Not sure what it's worth in English but the French version is indeed very good. My only complain is that they are sometimes a bit too complacent with US rivals and competitors.

Covid demonstrated that all mainstream media in the UK are controlled by the government. I ditched both my Economist and FT subscriptions in favour of independent journalists. I would have ditched the Economist anyway, it's become demented. I've been glancing at Foreign Affairs, but not sufficiently yet to decide on subscribing.

Have a look at: https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome Any page that needs to be bypassed is worthy of a glance; limiting yourself to just one source runs the risk of 'rose tinted glasses' syndrome.

Excellent, thanks for this. If I had the funds, I'd read everything from Adweek to Zeit Online, but paywalls mean I can only pick one or two.

There's also https://12ft.io/ if that helps.

Prospect

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/

You could look at the LRB (London Review of Books). While obviously it is mostly book reviews there are other essays in there too. The writing is rather literary, which may or may not be a positive, but it is entirely free of clickbait. It's probably the nearest thing to a left-wing equivalent of The Economist.

> It doesn't align exactly with my political values

Which values? I find it to be very analytic and dry in a good way.

That's the writing style. The choice of topics, point of view, and conclusions drawn at The Economist all show political bias.

Alright. What's the alternative? Read a multitude of even more biased single point of view blogs?

Jacobin is directionally correct but I'd love to hear of any better/less problematic publications

My only problem with Jacobin so far (I too, like the OP, quit The Economist after a decade or so of reading, mainly because my politics had drifted even further left) is the redesign has made it feel like someone printed out a Tumblr from the 2000s. Finding an article and being able to focus on it is near impossible.

I have similar feelings about the magazine. I think a lot of the oddness of their views are down to the writers not really being 'digital natives'. There's a hint of them being slightly confused and fearful when it comes to stories with a technological angle to them.

WSJ i read everyday and don't feel like i'm grating my brain against unlike other publications

Further ideas

Aside from the FT,

Read the BoE/ECB publications.

Follow topics you're interested in via REPEC https://ideas.repec.org/services.html - see subscription options at the base of the page.

Follow the econ Mastodon econtwitter.net

I guess as a Dutch speaker, I am somewhat “spoiled” by the existence of 360 Magazine [1].

They don't write their articles, but translate into Dutch news articles from all over the world. It really makes for high-quality reading.

  [1] https://www.360magazine.nl

In the last few years I've moved away from following large publications and toward following individuals. This keeps the average quality of the content very high and allows me view information that --while accurate-- might not make it past an editorial board.