[lbo-talk] Left alternative to The Economist? An Anti-Economist?

Jeffrey Fisher jeff.jfisher at gmail.com
Sat Aug 18 07:10:19 PDT 2007


On 8/17/07, Matt <lbo4 at beyondzero.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:28:09AM -0400, ravi wrote:
>
> > I agree with your view of The Economist and its readership -- many of my
> > otherwise intelligent and left-leaning tech friends subscribe to the rag
> > (I am not sure how much of it they read) because of this strange
> > attraction it holds (perhaps there are Anglophilia issues here).
>
> I always thought those that read and loved it actually did support the
> US Empire quietly but didn't want to admit it since they were
> thoughtful Democrats, and Democrats don't use those terms. The
> Economist justifies the position with a British smug and slightly
> superior, yet envious, tone, which feels oh-so-right.

Doug himself has observed this in the past, expressing his preference for a NYT/WP/FT triple-play (iirc). We seem to go through an Economist-bashing phase periodically on this list.

Why are we as leftists capable of reading "The Nation" critically, but not the Economist or FT?

Y'all can generalize speculatively all you want about readers of this or that publication, but it just makes you sound like Bill O'Reilly calling Jon Stewart's viewers a bunch of potheads. Certainly, without research, it's an exercise in self-indulgence, particularly when you engage in it with such disdain. Even supposing that your collective impression that pro-imperial Dems are the main "liberals" reading the Economist, what does that really say about the Economist? Seems to me to say much more about those liberals, and even about them it says only what we already knew. I've said on this list before that my understanding of conversations here is modeled on political or philosophical conversations over drinks at bars or something, and I still think that. But it means we can only take it so seriously. Otherwise it's like we've entered a smug leftist echochamber and walk out feeling like we have empirical justification for believing our off-the-cuff speculations about the nature of the world.

imo. ymmv. etc. etc.

As for the Economist itself, it's a great resource, not only because, as Marvin points out, they have virtually unparalleled resources, but because I always know pretty much exactly where they're coming from, and I have no difficulty whatsoever not seeing myself in it. I would prefer to be able to read the FT every day, but I can't. I don't even read the whole Economist every week, not even half. I don't subscribe, though. :) The Wall Street Journal may be the greatest newspaper in the US, right now. But I admit I haven't been reading it much for a little while, so I'm not prepared at the moment to go too far defending that thesis.

Is there a left version of the Economist? In a word, no. I think I would agree with Ravi, though, about BW. They *do* have a moral faculty, have for a while, and their writers and editors are smart. They just don't go after politics the same way the Economist does. And none of the major US weeklies is consistently even in the ballpark of the Economist. I notice no one has thought to mention them. Nuff said on that.

I have in the past subscribed to Guardian Weekly, mainly, in fact, to get LMD. But it just isn't as extensive and probably can't be. I will agree with those above who mention them, though, that they're probably the closest we've got on the left to the Economist.

Take it for what it's worth. And maybe that's not very much, but there it is.

j



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list