[Symmetry]

There really are some publications where you can read an article on a topic you're familiar with and they get it right. For instance I have a subscription to The Economist and sometimes their coverage is a bit shallow. And sometimes it repeats an expert consensus I disagree with. But most of the time the coverage is as good as it can be in the number of paragraphs allotted and sometimes it's downright excellent[1]. You probably have to actually pay money for high quality reporting.

[1]https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/12/01/the-semiconduc...

[ghaff]

And I’m guessing a lot of people here conflate simplifying for a mainstream audience as getting it wrong because they’ve omitted a lot of details.

Mind you, simplifying with a degree of accuracy is difficult and top writers like those with the Economist do it better than most. With tech stuff, I find more poor and incomplete explanations than I do outright errors. Mind you, back when I provided commentary for a lot of news stories, there were some reporters I always dreaded calls from because I knew steering them in the right direction was going to take an hour out of my life.

[garmaine]

Funny I’ve had the opposite experience with the economist. Whenever they touch my area of expertise they demonstrate their substantial ignorance and inability to fact check even the simplest things.

[gdy]

Except for almost any article about Russia.

[Spooky23]

The Economist is good, but tiring. They are sort of like an old school “chamber of commerce” republican version of NPR.

The writing is good and interesting, until to read for a year and realize that formula is pretty much the same, and you can predict the arc of the article after reading a paragraph.

[kingofpandora]

Just don't try to cancel your subscription ... Suddenly they become impossible to communicate with.