[mandogcat]

I'm British, have read the Economist in the past and a friend of mine interned there. I think "middle class" is bang on to describe their audience, which ranges from aspirational students to working professionals who want a quick news summary with some wit. Not many builders (working), dukes (upper) or Oxford faculty (upper middle) would be caught reading it. It's definitely seen as middlebrow fodder for undergraduates.

[somberi]

One of the catchy Economist adverts claims "99% of the 1% are subscribers". I get to interact now and then with this demographic and conversations often use a recent article in The Economist as a starting point. It may be middle class in the country it is published, but it has found elite clientele around the world.

[rattray]

What is the more high brow alternative?

[mandogcat]

Depends what topic you're going for but the guardian or ft, tatler, London or new York review of books, times literary supplement etc would be found in eg a London club library. Economist too, it's a light but fun read.

[frankzinger]

Are you really saying The Guardian is higher-brow than The Economist? As a regular reader of both I would never have guessed it. (I'm not British, if it matters.)

[mandogcat]

It's probably the highest brow of the mainstream (ie, non FT) newspapers. It's seen as less try hard and pseudointellectual than the Economist i think.

[mongrol-smush]

The Guardian is probably the most often quoted publication in Private Eye's "Pseuds Corner", a regular selection of unintentionally amusing psuedo-intellectual writing.

[mandogcat]

Oh no doubt, I'm just talking about general perception. The Economist hides its pseudiness better, behind the simple writing style (which I enjoy).