I took The Economist for well over two decades, but I began to lose confidence in it when I found that reports on matters on which I had some knowledge were superficial and even wrong.
The newspaper, as it prefers to call itself, was once edited by that great constitutionalist Walter Bagehot. It trades on the staus accumulated from its past high standards. But in recent times it has taken on an increasingly undergraduate air substituting opinionated arrogance for knowledge, understanding, common sense and experience.
One of the worst examples was a cover calling on President Clinton to resign or be impeached. It was over the Monica Lewinsky affair. The President did not accept this advice.
I did not renew my subscription, but have received increasingly attractive offers to come back.
Not while it propagates infantile bitchy republicanism.
Charles Moore’s comment in The Spectator of 7 May – which comes to me now as The Spectator Australia – gives an egregious example:
The Economist, published on the day of the wedding, covered it only thus: ‘A young man and his fiancée were expected to get married in central London on 29 April. Millions of Britons took advantage of the opportunity to take a foreign holiday.’ Strange how the cleverest often miss the most.
As silly as The Independent’s original and impossible policy not to report matters royal. Why don't they all grow up?