How to read The Economist
So Dani Rodrik (I know I know I pick on him too much but only because he's one of my favorite economists) asks whether he should start reading the Economist again and Henry at Crooked Timber comments. Sort of ironic, since Dani is the one that is probably responsible for yours truly getting mentioned in those esteemed pages (either him or Mark Thoma).
But anyway. Before one decides on whether to read anything one must know the proper way to read it. So I'm here to help out. Here's how I read The Economist:
1. Skip the entire US section.
2. Look in Europe section. Anything about Eastern Europe (which also includes the Balkans and Turkey)?
If so read it, if not skip it.
3. Look at Economics Focus. Is it about Finance or Social Security?
If so skip it, if not, read it.
4. Read the Obituary
5. Read the Africa, Asia and Latin America sections.
Unless it's about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Hugo Chavez or, well ... China.
6. Read the science section.
7. Look at the titles of articles and books and authors/artists in the Arts and Lit section.
Is it about Victorian crap? Skip it.
If it's about books by USish or British writers read it with a 10% probability.
Otherwise instantly make up my mind whether a particular book/art sounds like stupid crap or possibly interesting, which usually means reading a given article on non-Victorian, non-US, non-Brit lit or art topic with a probability of about 25%
8. Read the Letters to the Editor.
Verbalize out loud the "Dear Sir" that each letter starts with in an accent that is supposed to be, but is not, appropriate to the apparent ethnicity/nationality of the author.
But anyway. Before one decides on whether to read anything one must know the proper way to read it. So I'm here to help out. Here's how I read The Economist:
1. Skip the entire US section.
2. Look in Europe section. Anything about Eastern Europe (which also includes the Balkans and Turkey)?
If so read it, if not skip it.
3. Look at Economics Focus. Is it about Finance or Social Security?
If so skip it, if not, read it.
4. Read the Obituary
5. Read the Africa, Asia and Latin America sections.
Unless it's about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Hugo Chavez or, well ... China.
6. Read the science section.
7. Look at the titles of articles and books and authors/artists in the Arts and Lit section.
Is it about Victorian crap? Skip it.
If it's about books by USish or British writers read it with a 10% probability.
Otherwise instantly make up my mind whether a particular book/art sounds like stupid crap or possibly interesting, which usually means reading a given article on non-Victorian, non-US, non-Brit lit or art topic with a probability of about 25%
8. Read the Letters to the Editor.
Verbalize out loud the "Dear Sir" that each letter starts with in an accent that is supposed to be, but is not, appropriate to the apparent ethnicity/nationality of the author.
posted by YouNotSneaky! at 3:31 PM
28 Comments:
Good tips. Reading about stuff I know (particularly the US section) often feels like nails on a chalkboard. Strategic skimming is the key!
Of course, the question is: if the stuff I know something about is so grating, is it really a good idea to trust articles on stuff I don't know?
If you want to know stuff, then don't trust it. If you want to seem like you know stuff, then read it.
Jared, your dissertation sounds really interesting.
This is spot on. I think it's interesting that since more people are reading The Economist the cool kids now feel a moral obligation not to.
I think the new bulletin section before the letters to the editor is quite worth readaing, especially if you haven't been reading international news during the week.
Otherwise, spot on.
Unless it's about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Hugo Chavez or, well ... China.
and Zimbabwe.
Which what makes the Africa section annoying to me. Every article is really about Zimbabwe one way or another.
umm, all my life I've been reading magazines that discourse on subjects I'm expert in. These magazines, I have found, never know what they are talking about.
When reading magazines on subjects that I will never be expert in, such as the World, or finance, or eastern Asian peninsulas, should I then expect that an expert would find the magazine peurile as obviously he/she will?
What do I do with all the wisdom in this blog?
I'm afraid I have to admit that I read this blog the same way you read the Economist. . . with a great deal of skepticism. Hey, turn about's fair play, right? Arrogance and predictability seem to be hand in hand here.
You missed by favourite Economist ritual: when reading the letters to the editor, cover up the last one with your hand so you don't spoil the surprise. Of course, this used to work better under their prior editor when the last letter was always lighthearted.
Hey, whatever works for you Anonymous.
Great system — but clearly the obituary gets read first!
I was very pleased that they honored Gary Gygax this week, and with minimal snark about gamer geeks.
I have to say I quit reading the E after they endorsed Bush and the Iraq War, but as you say, skip the US section.
I read the US section and find its news excellent. I'm from Illinois, this article was spot on
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10854016
MY instructions on how to read The Economist:
Don't! US section is crap.
Technology Quarterly: worth a read four times a year.
Country Surveys: worth a read when they run.
Other surveys: hit and miss
Rhetorical Query: did their US coverage go 'far right' because they pander to this demographic in hope (eternally!) of boosting their US circulation?
CrocodileChuck
This post has been removed by the author.
There's a great discussion over at Matthew Yglesias's comments section on this question. My question is, what can you read from the left to correct for The Economist's shortcomings on Chavez, labor, etc.? I've been trying The New York Review of Books, but I wish the signal-to-noise ratio were better. Other recommendations?
I find myself wanting to defend The Economist - in so far as it seems no worse than the alternatives*, and better than most. How many people (I'm thinking of its UK critics) think The Economist is ill informed, blinkered and hectoring, and yet read The Guardian? I hope people aren't confusing ideological leanings they don't like with some objective standard of quality.
One thing the magazine does seem to be very good is for allowing people to look down their noses at its readers: "The Economist flatters readers who aren’t quite intelligent enough to realize how shallow it is into thinking that they are more intelligent than they are because they read it." (from Henry, CT). Unlike Crooked Timber readers, right? Or, and I'm sorry for befouling your comments section, but it's warranted, fucking Guardian readers?
The level of condescension directed at it is enough to make me want to stick up for it. I must be 'not quite intelligent enough', because although I don't read The Economist (only through lack of time / having too many other things to read) I still think it's pretty good, and I don't find myself disagreeing with it noticeably more often than other papers/magazines. My lack of intelligence may explain this, though.
* sure, there are some publications I rate more highly - seemingly like everyone else, the New Yorker and the back three pages of the FT - but these are different animals.
Also skip everything related to the energy sector (electricity, natural gas)and its liberalization. It is very ideological, ignorant of the technical realities of the sector, and has been consistently wrong (Enron was supposed to the best company in the sector and a model, deregulation of the power market was great, prices would fall with competition...).
The US section can be pretty bad, but I'll generally read Lexington and the Primary Colour entry. Mostly, though, I am saddened by the utter lack of Canadian coverage.
I dunno. The US section seems pretty interesting---I mean hilarious. The part I find myself skipping is Japan. I had to catalog years of economist articles for a project once and you could basically replace articles about Japan with "Japanese Official Resigns to avoid dishonour" or "Japanese Banks Silly: Still don't understand how to do business"
I also have been unconsciously using your procedure in the literature section for years.
Luis,
I tend to agree with you and I also think that the Economist's better than the alternatives. And I don't have a problem with their ideological POV since for the most part - excepting their support of GWB and the Iraqi War - I agree with their ideological point of view; Eastern European countries SHOULD liberalize their labor markets.
So yes, the guide was based more on aesthetic considerations (eg. I find Western European politics, and yes, even US politics way way more boring than the politics of your average middle income or poor country) than ideological ones.
And marie,
Depending on whom the obituary is about, yes, sometimes it does get read first.
Do you need a bailout? refi? http://www.fakepaycheckstubs.com
I agree that the Tech Quarterly is worth a read, but I find myself picking up the Economist not for the quality of its reporting but for the quality of its writing; it is in this area that it truly outperforms the competitors.
And why do they hate Chavez so much? I mean, I'm not a fan, but they really loath him.
Regarding the science section: Read the biology articles only for entertainment value: Too much emphasis on evolutionary biology , which makes for a nice speculation and narative but very thin on solid theory and data: Very shaky but thouroughly fun to read
Is there any special history behind the use of the word "sir". It seems like such an esteemed publication would have some historical precedence for doing that beyond British politeness.
Interesting idea. Though I think you need a snappy headline like "Thinking for yourself in 8 easy to remember heuristics" OR "8 reasons you shouldn't trust the English accent in your weekly tabloid".
I've been reading, well wsj, ft, guardian and various science publications for years. When travelling I pick up anything from der spiegel to time.
For all these years I have always had, and still have, one favourite. And that's the economist.
It may be because I fit the demographic as an economist working in the private sector. It may be because of my interest in international affairs, technology and business. And it may be because I feel at ease with their liberal(european meaning), free-trade approach.
But honestly there are few publications that fulfill my need for intelligent reflection in general the way the economist does. Reading the various comments on these blogs first made me curious. Then I felt two categories appear;
1. People on the left who simply does not like their ideological stance and confuse the disagreement with lack of quality.
2. My sterotype of self-proclaimed intellectuals who seem to start with the assumption that every publication is laughable.
Neither whom I have much sympathy for. I don't feel the need to say "there is no alternative", when I feel the economist is the best alternative. And I certainly wouldn't degrade myself to letting my ideological stances force me to read less-than-great newspapers.
Post a Comment
<< Home