A wonderful little (a bit long, actually) article in the
Atlantic (another good journal) on why the Economist is and will continue to be a strong and thriving paper, despite all its
detractors with their (justifiable) accusations of smug Anglophile old-school condescension and shoddy research, and the general malaise affecting the print media in the age of the internet:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/news-magazinesThe gist of the article is :
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.
...
And even as Time and Newsweek attempt to copy The Economist's success, they seem to be misunderstanding what it is, exactly, that they should be copying. By repositioning themselves as repositories of commentary and long-form reporting—much like this magazine, it's worth noting, which has never delivered impressive profit margins—the American newsweeklies are going away from precisely the thing that has propelled The Economist's rise: its status as a humble digest, with a consistent authorial voice, that covers absolutely everything that you need to be informed about.
The secret to The Economist's success is not its brilliance, or its hauteur, or its typeface. The writing in Time and Newsweek may be every bit as smart, as assured, as the writing in The Economist. But neither one feels like the only magazine you need to read. You may like the new Time and Newsweek. But you must—or at least, brilliant marketing has convinced you that you must—subscribe to The Economist.