No you shouldn't! It's terrible! You will come to understand this when they write about something you actually know about. What the Economist is good at is a tone of wry authority.
Can you give us some examples? I have never heard anyone say the economist is terrible. I have always found it to be a great source of info on world politics/markets but I'm not a IR/Finance pro so I guess I would not be the best judge.
I've actually have read articles about something I actually know about, and my immediate reaction usually is, "I'm not the intended audience." I usually find The Economist's article to be much more cursory, but frankly, I appreciate its brevity in areas I am not well versed.
I've come to respect The Economist more in those situations.
I don't understand why the Economist gets so much credibility. I've never actually seen a worthwhile policy analysis from them - their content is regurgitated ideology, but they try really hard to appear intelligent and balanced.
When something is wrong they always recommend 'reforms' and they avoid specifying what they are but its implied its privatization, low taxes, trade liberalization, deregulation. No matter the circumstances.
Anyone can do that. The only mildly interesting things are the trivia.
It's a matter of tone. Write in a dry voice, sound as disspassionate as possible, try to sound academic, and middlebrow readers will assume you must be a fount of un-biased, rational analysis.
7 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 28.2 ms ] threadI just wish the electronic version was cheaper.
I've come to respect The Economist more in those situations.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/according-to-the-economist-...
When something is wrong they always recommend 'reforms' and they avoid specifying what they are but its implied its privatization, low taxes, trade liberalization, deregulation. No matter the circumstances.
Anyone can do that. The only mildly interesting things are the trivia.