Sunday, July 25, 2010

Look at me, I'm reading The Economist! How reading The Economist is like drinking Indonesian cat poop coffee.


I only read three publications regularly: The Daily Barometer for its raunchy forums section, The Jakarta Post for news from Old Country, and The Economist because, as one Vanity Fair writer put it, it's "like that exotic coffee that comes from beans that have been eaten and shat out undigested by an Indonesian civet cat."

The Economist has an undeniable snob appeal, and I admit that's probably at least 50% of the reason I subscribe. One immediate indicator is its price, which has been consistently more expansive than Newsweek or Times, even after both American magazines had to update their prices due to reduced circulation. Another plus for The Economist is that its character is ostensibly that of a worldly, cynical quantitative social scientist. The magazine takes a center-right position, advocating economic liberalism, but also sensible government intervention where appropriate. These folks aren't your typical gun totting teabaggers, but you won't see them at a WTO protest either.

Lastly, The Economist insists upon itself with its cheeky petulance. Though obviously a magazine, it demands to be called a newspaper. Bylines are dropped, opting for an idea of a single, unified voice. The humor used is like an inside joke between readers and the writer. It's that kind of subtle, sarcastic wit that makes you smile smugly and go, "Heh." I bet you were beaten up a lot on the playground, too, nerd.

But while the smug appeal of The Economist might justify a slight premium, its content also excuses its price. My favorite sections of The Economist are actually its smaller articles, the ones that focus on events too local to make headlines. One article was about a woman in Washington who started a grassroots campaign to stop eminent domain, but was obstructed by bureaucratic regulations of political activism. The Economist writers often look at these minute events and interpret them from its consistent position of economism. The Economist is like that kid in your class who insists on talking about hair products from the perspective of microeconomics. You'll either hate it, or spend $120 on a yearly subscription.