The Economist rises whilst others decline
This video introduces an Atlantic article by writer Michael Hirschorn on what he terms the twilight of the newsweeklies. Yet in fact what he is referring to is the decline of Time and Newsweek and the rise of The Economist.
Despite Adam being a longtime devotee of The Economist, he recognizes that it is far from perfect. Yet as Hirschorn notes:-
True, The Economist virtually never gets scoops, and the information it does provide is available elsewhere … if you care to spend 20 hours Googling. But now that information is infinitely replicable and pervasive, original reporting will never again receive its due. The real value of The Economist lies in its smart analysis of everything it deems worth knowing—and smart packaging, which may be the last truly unique attribute in the digital age.
For a magazine that effectively blogged avant la lettre, The Economist has never had much digital savvy. It offered a complex mix of free and paid content (rarely a winning strategy) until two years ago and was so unprepared for the Internet that it couldn’t even secure theeconomist.com as its Web domain. (It later tried, unsuccessfully, to claim the URL.) Today, access to the site is free of charge, excepting deep archival material, but while editors have made some desultory efforts at adding social-networking features, most of the magazine’s readers seem to have no idea the site exists. While other publications whore themselves to Google, The Huffington Post, and the Drudge Report, almost no one links to The Economist. It sits primly apart from the orgy of link love elsewhere on the Web.
This turns out to have been a lucky accident. Unlike practically all other media “brands,” The Economist remains primarily a print product, and it is valued accordingly. In other words, readers continue to believe its stories have some value.
One other thing from Adam’s perspective, The Economist is less relentlessly American in it’s viewpoint. Indeed, some might say that Time and Newsweek suffer from not only having an American viewpoint, but one which plays only within the Beltway. The Economist takes a much broader perspective.
Adam does not totally agree with Hirschorn’s view of The Economist’s web prescence, he finds that there are some good features of the site, such as the debates for example.
Hirschorn’s article deserves to be read in full. His closing words bear consideration and not just in the context of media:-
In the digital age, razor-sharp clarity and definition are the keys to success. Knowing what and who you are, and conveying that idea to an audience, is the only way to break through to readers ADD’ed out on an infinitude of choices. General-interest is out; niche is in. The irony, as restaurateurs and club-owners and sneaker companies and Facebook and Martha Stewart know—and as The Economist demonstrates, week in and week out—is that niche is sometimes the smartest way to take over the world.














I agree totally on the Economist – I’d happily read them in paper every week. Unfortunately, the useless buggers cannot get themselves organised enough that I get the paper version on a Friday, which everyone in the UK does get. They’re not even in the shops on Friday or Saturday in Aus at the moment. And I like reading on the weekend, and don’t like reading news that’s a full week old. So I read the web version (available Friday night).
Money going begging, all because they can’t find a way to print and distribute in a reasonable timeframe. Maybe the time zone is making it hard for them.
I agree Paul. Now read the web version. But somehow it is not the same.