[Akula]

(08-04-2013 11:12 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 03:21 AM)SexualHarrasmentPanda Wrote:  

The economist is a great magazine although it's economically liberal leanings are somewhat of a negative.

What liberal leanings? They're not liberal nor conservative, which is a big plus for me.

The Economist is simply the best economy and world affairs magazine/newspaper in English language out there.

And yes, BBC news is way better than CNN. Actually are people still watching CNN these days?

It depends on the topic, but I think the Economist has often has a left-wing economic tint to it on certain issues, although it's nothing compared to most of the other UK and American mainstream media outlets. By that I mean, for example, it's pro-immigration, pushes Global Warming themes, often has a 'progressive' social leanings & unrealistically pushes 'democratic values' as a cure-all for everything.

But by the same token, as the Guardian pointed out, "its writers rarely see a political or economic problem that cannot be solved by the trusted three-card trick of privatisation, deregulation and liberalisation." So there's also an underlying bias toward pure capitalism.

Andrew Sullivan did a dressing down of the Economist a few years ago where he addressed how he thought it was sort of a watered down "Reader's Digest" version of political reporting geared towards corporate Americans and other readers.

From Wikipedia:

"In 1999, Andrew Sullivan complained in the New Republic that it uses "marketing genius" to make up for deficiencies in analysis and original reporting, resulting in "a kind of Reader's Digest"[76] for America's corporate elite.[77] While Sullivan did acknowledge that the magazine's claim about the dotcom bursting would probably be accurate in the long run,[76] the bubble would not burst in the US market until 2001.[78] Sullivan also pointed out that the magazine greatly exaggerated the danger the US economy was in after the Dow Jones fell to 7,400 during the 1998 Labor Day weekend and noted that the magazine's claim that the US economy was at a high risk of entering a recession was far from clear.[76] He also said that The Economist is editorially constrained because so many scribes graduated from the same college at Oxford University, Magdalen College,[76] which he described as "a somewhat ineffective system for correcting internal flaws in a global magazine."[76]

Still think it's a good magazine though.