|
According to http://store.economist.com/FAQ.aspx
> The Economist is published weekly, 51 times a year, with the Christmas double issue remaining on sale for two weeks. The issue is dated Saturday and goes on sale each Friday. I know from reading it semi-regularly that it comments on significant economic/political developments from around the globe. It does this by breaking the world in regions (Europe, Asia, Africa, Americas) and then choosing to the stories from that region. Elections, power struggles, wars, economic fortunes, social/political movements, biographical sketches. The Economist also has special features on a weekly basis that cover global topics in depth, could be Bitcoin one week, renewable energy the next, the €zone crisis another week, also scientific topics. By necessity (because it is published weekly and because its scope is global) the regular news stories are not in depth but I wouldn't therefore call them shallow. They are condensed is the word I'd use. Maybe they lose a bit of nuance but that's understandable. When they do scientific and technical articles I find that their fact-checking and research seems to frequently attain a very high quality. People have commented on this feature of The Economist here on HN. Only The New Yorker seems to be more fastidious. What you call opinion or conjecture is actually their editorial stance§. The Economist is unashamedly biased. They believe in the free markets and I would say have a very liberal (in the British/European sense of the word liberal) philosophical outlook. They often defend their values. To have values is to be biased. What's worse I think are publications that report the news and pretend they're unbiased, when you can tell they're not either by sins of omission or misreporting whether deliberate or not and slanted recounting. § I personally don't share their worldview, I am more socialist than they but I recognise that disagreement on values isn't the same as that "well, that's just, like, your _opinion_ man" |