1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
|
 |
This is how a friend of mine once described economist magazine. This is a news magazine par excellence; it is head and shoulders above the rest, and claims (which great justification) to be the news reporter of the world. 'Sinceits founding by James Wilson in 1843, the economist has been the world's most enduring and distinguished proponent of free markets and free trade. 'To be sensible without being heavy, to be lively without being silly, to be original without being eccentric,' as editor Geoffrey Gather stated 50 years ago, has steadfastly been its mission.'
This magazine is read by the powerful and the power-hope-fouls in every capital in the world. The economist magazine prides itself on being one edition, consistent in publication throughout the world; it will not succumb to the temptation of 'regional' editions, which might boost sales but lessen the 'one news source for the world'; it also will not do so, that it may tell those governments which threaten it (hoping for a censoring ability) that they must take it or leave it--when various nations have banned the economist from their shores, it becomes a hot commodity for smugglers! Until it recently went to regional publications, only once did economist make a change; the paper is released on Friday mornings in London, but is already put to print and shipped out for the rest of the world prior to this release. When Margaret Thatcher resigned, the world copies had been issued, but the British printing hadn't been completed. So, they changed the leader. The following week, however, in great integrity, they owned up to the switch, and printed in its entirety the texts of the changed bits.
Economist: One source for the world.
When it began 160 years ago, the economist magazine had a circulation and readership of a little under 2000; now it has nearly a million, with over 80% outside of Britain. This has caused some changes in the economist journal. When I worked in Parliament, it was part of my required duties to go to the newsagent each Friday morning and collect copies of the economist magazine, and spend the morning with one or two MPs reading over the articles. At that time, the sections on Britain and Europe were much more extensive than they are now. The economist journal covers America, Asia, Africa, Finance, Industry, Business; it almost always has a special section supplement on an idea (the internet), a particular country (the country reports are required reading for potential investors and diplomats alike), or some such topic. It is great to own an economist subscription.
The economist has a moderate-conservative social stances, a free-market business and economy bias, and a common sense approach to most issues. It strives to steer clear of social commentary, save when it is of such great import that it is likely to impact on politics or economics. The economist magazine features short sections for book reviews, science articles, etc., and these are often creative and a little less reigned in by the conventional writers' required standards. But The Economist has maintained a non-affiliation with party politics, rare among British journalists. 'The radicalism of The economist and genuine absence of party loyalty lead to much misunderstanding of its position [of wanting a Conservative victory in 1992, under the banner of 'May the Worst Lot Lose'] particularly because of the often arrogant nature of its criticism and its gift for the wounding phrase. The British press in general is so partisan and so predictable that the concept of an independent organ is a difficult one to grasp.'
The economist indeed can be haughty and condescending, scathing and arrogant. But, as the opinions will tell you, they have a right to be. They are usually right.
|
|
|
