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.
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.
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.
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).
>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.
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.