[the_sleaze_]

I found the Economist to be a liberal rag. I mean that respectfully, and it has been a number of years since I've bothered to pick one up so maybe it has changed. I know people who I respect that read every issue cover to cover.

A newspaper called The Economist should not take a hyper-critical view of conservatism or right-leaning politics across the globe, and hyper-liberal views about decisions leaders are making. I do not need my morals being shaped by my news outlet - full stop.

I find the Week and the Financial Times to be significantly better.

[rconti]

I haven't subscribed to the Economist in 15 years but I'm considering re-subscribing. We used to get The Week as a gift, but it was just WAY too surface-level and "both sides-y".

[the_sleaze_]

> WAY too surface-level and "both sides-y"

IMHO this is an indicator that they are doing a great job. The opposite being "extremely niche and biased".

I don't need to know the deep inner workings of India's goings on, and especially don't need my first introduction to it being profoundly myopic and spun. Which is what I find the Economist to be guilty of.

Give me surface level and neutral.

[benoliver999]

FT is great. The Week I just cannot get on with the style of writing.

[koyote]

Why not read both FT and the Economist?

Both are well written and well researched and although they both take an ulta-capitalist view of the world (might be good to also read something more socialist-leaning), at least when it comes to social issues you might get a bit more of a nuance by comparing their takes.

[the_sleaze_]

It's a good point I just don't have the time to devote.

I like to be informed I don't necessarily need to be able to deliver a nuanced treatise on current global events. When I become supreme chief I'll have my cabinet read both.