The Economist has an established editorial slant and actively practices advocacy journalism.
You're looking for The Christian Science Monitor. Their whole reason for being is avoiding sensationalist reporting (biased reporting, I'd argue, is impossible to avoid completely). They go so far as to not use any of the wire services, so that biases don't creep in there, and use their own on-the-ground reporters instead.
What's tragic is that news sources like that are being plowed under along with the Fox Newses of the world with everyone's decision that "eh, blogs are just as good."
(edit: Well that's embarrassing. Apparently HTML markup doesn't work here.)
The Economist is actually pretty good. They have their own political bias (see at wikipedia entry) but both, their news and technology reporting is top notch.
I agree with you, it is interesting this came from Wired.
But I have a strong personal bias against the Economist, and I feel like you used it as an example of a more serious journalist-y news.
I feel that the Economist is resting on its historic good name but has become a simple liberal rag that people use as a virtue signal. It's a terrible news source, incredibly and unabashedly biased, and the only time I have ever heard of it has been in Washington DC where only the most insufferable people smugly declare they read it cover to cover.
I would humbly submit better outlets like The Week, Barron's, or maybe Quanta.
Fair enough, but I think you pretty much have to read all news with an eye toward that outlet's particular editorial slant, and I'd just as well have editorializing upfront with the Economist instead of under the guise of being purely impartial.
Even when I don't agree with them, it's always an enlightening read.
The Economist is one of the least biased sources of news, that routinely publishes letters, opeds and articles contradicting the sated editorial agenda.
Very few other news sources actually do that.
They're not perfect, but it sure beats NYT.
If you want the optimal news coverage without needing to read a million sources - The Economist, Financial Times, WSJ and The Guardian.
While I agree that The Economist has an editorial slant, it is at least informative enough that you can form your own independent opinion from their reporting. (At the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign they seemed to be stumping hard for McCain; they were my main source of news and I still wasn't swayed away from Obama.)
As far as sensationalism and lack of depth, I'm not sure they can really be faulted.
What gave you the impression they want to be objective? The Economist is very upfront about their bias and positions, more so than any major newspaper I can think of. It's pretty common to see "this newspaper supports x" in an article about a controversial issue. It shouldn't be your only news source, but they've never pretended to be dedicated to objectivity like Reuters or something.
The Economist is also amazingly objective in its reporting. It's the only publication (that I know of) where you feel like both sides get a fair hearing.
The Economist is the most honest and relatively unbiased news source I could find. They do explicitly lean towards classical liberalism, but the reporting still seems objective enough.
My father is a liberal newspaper reporter and describes The Economist as the best hope for journalism. If you have to stretch to smear it by pointing out the lack of bylines and its start over 150 years ago, then I have to wonder what your biases are. The Economist has its slant for sure but your characterization of it is extreme.
I was going to say "The Economist" as well. They do some breaking news on their web site, but not much, and I wouldn't really go there for that. By the time I actually get the print edition, it's usually a bit stale in terms of the absolute latest, but the analysis and commentary is usually interesting to read.
Agreed. The Economist has a bias towards free markets and free press but they are clear on those points. They do a lot of things to stay as unbiased as possible, like avoiding attaching a single name to a byline for a story.
Even Karl Marx read The Economist, for what it’s worth.
It is a weekly publication with good writers. Meaning: it is rarely, if ever, sensational, and covers prominent issues around the globe so I stay informed after about 60 minutes of reading. I still haven't figured out which way the editorial staff swings because they do a good job of keeping explicit bias out, but they seem to be left of center.
I also subscribe to The Atlantic. They are solid long-form reporting, but occasionally they get a really far-out article.
I used to get The Baffler, great out-of-the-box ideas, but the content was too depressing.
The interesting thing with the Economist is that they alone seem to be able to do what they do. A weekly editorial summary of news and relevant stories that people pay for, which is read by business people. Is there a competing magazine? I am not aware of it.
Their content is unrivalled, although you really need to be aware of their biases. But I don't feel they try to hide them, rather the opposite.
However, with so few global sources of information, like The Economist, that do a good job, aren't we in danger of quite a narrow understanding of what is going on?
I think the Guardian Weekly is an interesting counterpoint, but it isn't avaiable on digital afaik. Are ther other weekly news magazines that reaches the Economists editorial quality?
Not sure what you mean - The Economist is often opinionated, but they lay out their arguments and don't hide their agenda. I find it much more palatable than the "he said, she said" or "opinions diverge on the shape of the earth" type journalism.
You're looking for The Christian Science Monitor. Their whole reason for being is avoiding sensationalist reporting (biased reporting, I'd argue, is impossible to avoid completely). They go so far as to not use any of the wire services, so that biases don't creep in there, and use their own on-the-ground reporters instead.
What's tragic is that news sources like that are being plowed under along with the Fox Newses of the world with everyone's decision that "eh, blogs are just as good."
(edit: Well that's embarrassing. Apparently HTML markup doesn't work here.)
reply