[coolsunglasses]

Most Economist pieces are written by try-hard underpaid 20-somethings desperate to be taken seriously.

Keeping that in mind helps to contextualize nonsense like this.

It's also why the Economist operates the way they do.

[sentenza]

Oh boy, are you right. I have an Economist subscription which I got after foolishly assuming that the quality of Charlemagne and Bagehot are representative of the whole product.

What enrages me most is that the "leader" opinion pieces (at the very front of every issue) are so catastrophically bad. I recently wondered if there might be a positive correlation between how bad a political decision has played out and whether or not it had been demanded by "leader".

As soon as it runs out, I'll get a Guardian subscription instead.

[abawany]

I too had an Economist subscription (thankfully due to airline points) which I did not renew. Sometimes, it felt like Fox News with an English accent. It was always a good read but the monolithic "insight" started to rankle after a while. Also, I sometimes read a given magazine many months after I received it - it was fun to compare reality vs. what was predicted in the magazine.

[VLM]

I know what you mean, but its all in the interpretation. "Here's the most important PR spin we can present at this time." They usually make the right decision about it being the most important PR message. Being important, influential or loud seems to have little bearing on if the spin is actually correct or not.

Whats on the inside front cover of Make Magazine? That means its probably worth talking about; doesn't mean its necessarily the right thing for everyone to buy all the time.

Look on the bright side, at least the Economist isn't as bad as getting your biz/econ news from CNBC; as a legacy media its pretty good.