7 ms·

My life has changed for the better since subscribing to the Economist in 2011. For me, it's not about paying for content (which is great) but for the 'feeling o

My life has changed for the better since subscribing to the Economist in 2011. For me, it's not about paying for content (which is great) but for the 'feeling of being informed'. After reading each issue I feel informed about what is going on around the world. This has sparked many conversations with people from around the world. I hope that following this transition that 'feeling of being informed' will not go away and I have no reason to suspect it would. If only I had local and regional news at such a calibre...

chm 11y ago
I coincidentally also subscribed to the Economist in 2011 and I can relate to the feeling of being informed. However I had to cancel my subscription in 2013 for lack of time. After a while, I could never finish an issue. To be honest I have regretted my decision and I now feed on lesser quality news from "free" sources. It really is a great publication but I couldn't justify the spending or the piling up of issues. I might go back this year, been thinking about it.
- tmcz26 11y ago
  I had the same issue when I was up for renewal a few years back, with issues piling up and no time, but I didn't want to miss the content. I first tried the audio version of the iPhone app, but the complexity of the content was too much for a non-English native. Finally I decided for the digital version on the iPhone gap, which I read while commuting.
- rm999 11y ago
  I had the same issue. Then I found out the Economist puts out a audio version of their entire print edition. My podcast app downloads it automatically every Thursday (using RSS), and it provides me with more than enough content for the week. I listen to it at 1.5x speed and can get through 5-10 articles during my commute.
- saryant 11y ago
  If you have airline miles lying around, most programs offer a year subscription for around 5000 miles. No digital access though, just print.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- molotv 11y ago
  The key to reading the Economist is to go into it not planning to read the whole thing. My approach: Read all the short blurbs in the first couple of pages, then most of the 1/2 page articles that follow, note any that seem interesting, then seek out the longer versions deeper in the issue. As you work through the issue, skip or lightly skim the rest that don't spark interest.
  - kbenzle 11y ago
    Your "reading" it still, what is this 2005?? The audio edition is amazing! After three years of listening to every issue I think I may be picking up a British accent in my day to day life.
    - MichaelGG 11y ago
      How does that help with time? Nearly everyone reading it is most certainly capable of reading far, far faster than listening, no? I suppose if you have an unfortunate, long commute, it might work, but otherwise?
      - ersii 11y ago
        When you're doing physical tasks while not having to co-operate with someone else, you can listen to the audio version while continuing to execute on the physical task. You can also listen while moving your person about from place to place, which can be quite hard or inefficient to do while reading. I certainly spend a lot of time moving from one place to another. I also assume there are plenty of people who do the same.
      - fsloth 11y ago
        It's quite hard to read while making lunch, cleaning, running, cycling etc. It's also quite hard to concentrate on anything cerebral after a day of work, doing any number of these things and tending to the needs of small kids. Audio books, OTOH, make housework a joy since I can tune out of the horror of cooking and cleaning and concentrate on accumulating knowledge from one source or another. Also, much more motivation to run since simlarly, I can just observe my pulse meter occasionally and otherwise concentrate on the book.
- cubancigar11 11y ago
  I did the same - subscribed in 2007 and cancelled it in 2012. And I am here in minority but I cancelled it BECAUSE of its content. The barrage of anti China news, anti India news, and then the lack of any standing on any issue except free market. Economist consistently backtracks on everything if it somehow results in more free market. It is why it was established in the first place so why complain? The height was when they published an article saying how Iran is against hezbollah but two issues later they said Iran must stop supporting hezbollah. Then they once went on for several weeks about chinese government's crackdown on prostitution and how it is fomenting dissent. Then a train crashed and again they went harping about how dissent was just around the corner. Moving out of West in 2010 suddenly showed me how Economist is just a high end mouth piece of British government, hidden behind sophistication and the prestigious name. So I decided to just cancel my subscription.
  - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
    Feels pretty familiar. Where did you end up living by the way in 2010?
    - cubancigar11 11y ago
      I am in India.
Ollinson 11y ago
I subscribed to the economist sometime in the middle of 2012 and did not have a positive experience. I'm convinced that much of the allure of the economist comes from that it is frank contrarian news source. I don't like the anonymous authorship for reasons which have been stated on hacker news in other economist posts. The economist is sneaky. All of the articles are fact/numbers based and then shoehorned with a political interpretation that you can't realistically argue with unless you are an expert in the some very niche domain. This leads to many people in my field (finance) having strong opinions on an impossible variety of subjects which ultimately boils down to parroting the economist. The culture of "lying with statistics" comes to mind. I realize many of these problems are inherent in journalism but the economist relies more than others on being opaquely unimpeachable. Reading the economist felt less like a dialog and more like "believe us or appear uninformed in public."
- mdekkers 11y ago
  I was subscribed to the economist for several years, and unsubscribed once I figured out that much of their content on non-western countries is either heavily tinted, or outright false.
  - Ollinson 11y ago
    The economist is very good at providing readers with the illusion of being informed. Think about how multifaceted US policy is on any given day of the year. The economist boils down similar issues to a blurb on a page with a heading that says "middle east." So now you can turn that page and be confident that for this week you know what's going on in the middle east. The truth is the economist fills a void. Before reading an issue you know nothing about current events in India. After reading you know something. Something is vastly more power than confessing ignorance in any situation. And if anyone questions you, well, the economist said so.
    - saryant 11y ago
      In any given issue the Middle East & Africa section is 4-5 pages long, hardly a "blurb".
lispm 11y ago
Informed about the neo-liberal point of view.

chm 11y ago

I coincidentally also subscribed to the Economist in 2011 and I can relate to the feeling of being informed. However I had to cancel my subscription in 2013 for lack of time. After a while, I could never finish an issue. To be honest I have regretted my decision and I now feed on lesser quality news from "free" sources. It really is a great publication but I couldn't justify the spending or the piling up of issues. I might go back this year, been thinking about it.

tmcz26 11y ago
I had the same issue when I was up for renewal a few years back, with issues piling up and no time, but I didn't want to miss the content. I first tried the audio version of the iPhone app, but the complexity of the content was too much for a non-English native. Finally I decided for the digital version on the iPhone gap, which I read while commuting.
rm999 11y ago
I had the same issue. Then I found out the Economist puts out a audio version of their entire print edition. My podcast app downloads it automatically every Thursday (using RSS), and it provides me with more than enough content for the week. I listen to it at 1.5x speed and can get through 5-10 articles during my commute.
saryant 11y ago
If you have airline miles lying around, most programs offer a year subscription for around 5000 miles. No digital access though, just print.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
molotv 11y ago
The key to reading the Economist is to go into it not planning to read the whole thing. My approach: Read all the short blurbs in the first couple of pages, then most of the 1/2 page articles that follow, note any that seem interesting, then seek out the longer versions deeper in the issue. As you work through the issue, skip or lightly skim the rest that don't spark interest.
- kbenzle 11y ago
  Your "reading" it still, what is this 2005?? The audio edition is amazing! After three years of listening to every issue I think I may be picking up a British accent in my day to day life.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    How does that help with time? Nearly everyone reading it is most certainly capable of reading far, far faster than listening, no? I suppose if you have an unfortunate, long commute, it might work, but otherwise?
    - ersii 11y ago
      When you're doing physical tasks while not having to co-operate with someone else, you can listen to the audio version while continuing to execute on the physical task. You can also listen while moving your person about from place to place, which can be quite hard or inefficient to do while reading. I certainly spend a lot of time moving from one place to another. I also assume there are plenty of people who do the same.
    - fsloth 11y ago
      It's quite hard to read while making lunch, cleaning, running, cycling etc. It's also quite hard to concentrate on anything cerebral after a day of work, doing any number of these things and tending to the needs of small kids. Audio books, OTOH, make housework a joy since I can tune out of the horror of cooking and cleaning and concentrate on accumulating knowledge from one source or another. Also, much more motivation to run since simlarly, I can just observe my pulse meter occasionally and otherwise concentrate on the book.
cubancigar11 11y ago
I did the same - subscribed in 2007 and cancelled it in 2012. And I am here in minority but I cancelled it BECAUSE of its content. The barrage of anti China news, anti India news, and then the lack of any standing on any issue except free market. Economist consistently backtracks on everything if it somehow results in more free market. It is why it was established in the first place so why complain? The height was when they published an article saying how Iran is against hezbollah but two issues later they said Iran must stop supporting hezbollah. Then they once went on for several weeks about chinese government's crackdown on prostitution and how it is fomenting dissent. Then a train crashed and again they went harping about how dissent was just around the corner. Moving out of West in 2010 suddenly showed me how Economist is just a high end mouth piece of British government, hidden behind sophistication and the prestigious name. So I decided to just cancel my subscription.
- IkmoIkmo 11y ago
  Feels pretty familiar. Where did you end up living by the way in 2010?
  - cubancigar11 11y ago
    I am in India.

Ollinson 11y ago

I subscribed to the economist sometime in the middle of 2012 and did not have a positive experience. I'm convinced that much of the allure of the economist comes from that it is frank contrarian news source. I don't like the anonymous authorship for reasons which have been stated on hacker news in other economist posts. The economist is sneaky. All of the articles are fact/numbers based and then shoehorned with a political interpretation that you can't realistically argue with unless you are an expert in the some very niche domain. This leads to many people in my field (finance) having strong opinions on an impossible variety of subjects which ultimately boils down to parroting the economist. The culture of "lying with statistics" comes to mind. I realize many of these problems are inherent in journalism but the economist relies more than others on being opaquely unimpeachable. Reading the economist felt less like a dialog and more like "believe us or appear uninformed in public."

mdekkers 11y ago
I was subscribed to the economist for several years, and unsubscribed once I figured out that much of their content on non-western countries is either heavily tinted, or outright false.
- Ollinson 11y ago
  The economist is very good at providing readers with the illusion of being informed. Think about how multifaceted US policy is on any given day of the year. The economist boils down similar issues to a blurb on a page with a heading that says "middle east." So now you can turn that page and be confident that for this week you know what's going on in the middle east. The truth is the economist fills a void. Before reading an issue you know nothing about current events in India. After reading you know something. Something is vastly more power than confessing ignorance in any situation. And if anyone questions you, well, the economist said so.
  - saryant 11y ago
    In any given issue the Middle East & Africa section is 4-5 pages long, hardly a "blurb".

lispm 11y ago

Informed about the neo-liberal point of view.