[atmosx]

The economist is okay if you are conservative liberal with strong bias towards the "west". Russia and China are _wrong_ by default, every _war_ (Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran... all of them failed campaigns by public standards, Afghanistan not failed(?) by US standards - Afghanistan is about global heroin control btw) is justifiable and actively supported, Banks ought to be _protected_ any social-welfare policy (before covid, in the covid era the tune has changed considerably) is brought to us by "populist devilish politicians" while every bank-saving, pro-market scheme which leaves large % of the population jobless is "made-in-heaven".

The economist like reading an old British grandmother supporting financial schemes and policies which failed more time than I can count, again and again.

By the way before 2010 the articles were better argued and these differences were not so blatant. I believe the quality has decreased considerably. Then again, these are polarized times...

There's also the good parts. The obituary, the "Charlemagne" part is often somewhat relevant.

Examples of double-standards are Brexit vs France "yello vests" movement. The British should by all means do another referendum or the politicians should mimic the 2015 Greek PM and revert the result the of the referendum because "people don't know". The French voters should stay put and accept "the result of the democratic procedures" which brought Macron to power. So... Which one is it then? Respect democracy or overturn it? ;-)

When I was a subscriber I was getting informed for various matters all over the world, so if it's the economist vs nothing, I would prefer the economist. If it's the economist vs something else, well... I don't know.

[aitait]

I ignore the war statements since I would have to review several issues again before I could give an opinion.

"conservative liberal" Not sure that the Economist is conservative. Sure, it is pro-market and pro "west" in the sense of Open Society and Democracy.

"The British should by all means do another referendum or the politicians should mimic the 2015 Greek PM and revert the result the of the referendum because "people don't know"."

This may have indeed the best solution since nobody really know what "Brexit" means since there are several options of Brexit. But I also remember the issue where they wrote: Now, as Brexit has happened, lets try to make the best out of it.

"Respect democracy or overturn it? ;-)" Well, currently the majority of the British people are against Brexit. So it is the uttermost democratic principle, that opinions can change.

"When I was a subscriber I was getting informed for various matters all over the world, so if it's the economist vs nothing, I would prefer the economist. If it's the economist vs something else, well... I don't know."

Is is unlikely that there is a magazine that can afford the intelligence service of the economist. Maybe Bloomberg.

[atmosx]

I find the New York Times a far superior publication both in terms of volume and breadth of authors. The fact that the economist doesn’t post the name of the authors is problematic.

Regarding the “war statement” as you put it, all you have to do is find one war it didn’t openly support. Even the Genocide in Yemen was supported :-)

If you can give a few examples of “the west promoting democracy”would be fine, surely Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine or Syria are not “democracies”, they’re more like failed states.

I understand that some people have a hard time accepting democratic results, when these results don’t conform with their worldview. The Brexit referendum was by all means a wrong choice, but showcased a country with institutions that work vs one (Greece) totally controllore by oligarchs and foreign powers. So which one better? I guess depends on the virtuous one believes in, freedom is a good one IMO :-)