Digg this
| 
Post to del.icio.us
| 
E-mail to a friend
That was the subject line of an e-mail I got this morning. I thought at first it was the worst porn spam ever, but it turned out to be a link to Phil Rosenthal's fulsome story about the Economist's new marketing push in the U.S., which involves giving money to the Tribune for advertising. It also got them some invaluable press from Phil Rosenthal.
"It is, however, unquestionably a magazine for serious people."
"It is a magazine resolutely committed to expanding one's worldview -- and expanding its roster of international correspondents -- at a time when news organizations of all stripes seem bent on reducing both resources and space for international coverage, fully intending to focus on matters of local import but easily distracted by the latest blond's latest breakdown."
"These are people who know they need more than dessert in a balanced news diet and actually have developed a taste for the stuff that's supposed to be good for them."
"As once observed in song, and with a British accent so you know it was wise: How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?"
Whether or not Rosenthal is aware of the irony -- "How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat" comes from "Another Brick in the Wall Pt. 2," Pink Floyd's damning song about the British educational system -- is not clear.
The Economist is a fine roundup of world news, I guess, but it's always struck me as a boring, overpriced relic of a period when the only other options for overseas reports were TV news and the big national newsweeklies, and its outsized reputation seems mostly due to a cultural inferiority complex that also explains the damage Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens have been allowed to do to American journalism. Not that the Economist has ever allowed a warmongering fool such as Sullivan to besmirch its pages, but I think there's a connection.
I make no claims to being a serious person, though, so take that as you will.
Update: "I find that only the right cracking coverage of The E-CON-omist keeps me jolly-well informed and all that, wouldn't you agree?" (h/t Otto von Bisquick)
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34138
I'm tired of the Economist too, but they keep sending it to me despite my not renewing. I guess the gains from larger circulation numbers and the associated higher ad rates must be greater than the losses from sending people like me the mag for free. For me it is a good place to get business and finance coverage, though, as that's not something I follow daily.
Americans' (including my) reactions to and perceptions of the mag are interesting, though. I imagine there's something to be said about the irony of our breakaway republic's fascination and admiration of British culture. Someone smart has probably written about this in depth.
And at least Sullivan changed his mind about the neocons, last I checked.
Then again, the reason I used to buy remains the best reason to buy it: to read it on a plane. I once landed in another city in the US an expert on nanotechnology because of the Economist's special issue on it that week.