I see this claim in nearly every HN thread about the Economist -- that it's declined in quality.

And it baffles me because, having read it for 20+ years and gone back for research to read plenty of articles from further back... I just don't see it at all.

It's the same market-based, socially progressive, pragmatic international strongly opinionated journalism it's always been. Sometimes I think the way it characterizes something is missing part of the full picture, but it's always been that way. Journalists are fallible humans, they aren't gods, and it's not like there was some mythical past where they always got things right.

I can totally understand people not enjoying it as much as they grow older, simply because you come to mistrust journalism more in general, or shift in your ideological viewpoint so it becomes less agreeable. Readers change.

But I'm getting tired of this trope that it's the Economist that's been changing, that's been getting worse. It just doesn't make any sense. It's the same journalism it's always been. For every article you take issue with, I'm sure you'd find just as many from 20 or 30 years ago.

I suppose it's just part of a general narrative of declinism, how everything used to be so much better and the world is crumbling. But in this case, I just don't see it. You might not like the magazine anymore and that's fine, but I think there's a good chance it's you who has changed, not the magazine.

You might add to your list. It is free and well written.

The good thing about Financial Times: It is a UK publisher, not US-based, so the reporting on the US is more skeptical and nuanced. Less screechy. To be fair, I avoid almost all of the opinion pieces except for Martin Wolf, because he is basically writing an economics column. The rest is rather inflammatory (much lower editorial standards!) and can can readily be skipped.

Also consider the free FT AlphaVille which is a blog attached to FT. Much more casual reporting style, but they have cracked some big cases, including Dan Mccrum's year-long (later explosive) investigation into Wirecard.

Very timely question, I just purchased an issue of the Economist because I was toying with the idea of re-instating a previously held subscription. I share the disappointment.

In the past, even just the book reviews were so good that they "forced" me to buy 2-3 of the reviewed books; that issue didn't intrigue me. I don't have an answer whether it's a general trend or not, as I'm trained not to ascribe too much weight to a sample of size N=1.

There's probably nothing better regardless, but I, for one, would like to see an alternative that is at the same quality level as the Economist (but with more neutral reporting and individual author names given) and an even wider scope (health, science, society, technology, geopolitics, finance, law, ...).

I subscribed the Guardian for one year just to avoid that it goes down (I could read it for free at work), and of course it is excellent, but it has a tacit pro-UK bias that brits (esp. leftists) wouldn't even notice. On the other hand they have excellent reporting and do not refrain from the most challenging topics like the Snowdon revelation (first published by The Guardian's New York office, for legal - freedom of speech - reasons).

Germany has Der Spiegel, France has Le Monde Diplomatique, but I think only the latter is available in English (I read German).

I would also enjoy paying for a single subscription that gave me online access to several of these top-tier magazine for a single flat-rate monthly or annual subscription price.

Could you give examples of how quality has declined? I'm scared if a rag like Jacobin is in the running.

When people say that the quality of a publication has declined they often mean they disagree with things that are published. Many also say that they seek out blogs and other sources that I assume they agree with.

I read these publications because I often disagree with their opinion pieces. It's a value add. Why would I pay to read my own views regurgitated? It's a danger inherent in trying to micromanage and curate a very narrow source of information. You end up only ingesting things that you agree with.

My 2 cents. Sorry for the big edit

I go through cycles with the Economist, months when I can't stand it, and months when I read most pieces. Think it is me and the Economist. That said, I have not found any consistently better alternative in English or any of the other languages, so guess I am a lifer. But, I don't read pieces on current news in places I know well. My favorite section is letters to the editor. Like every time there is a piece on Singapore, the high commissioner will complain in the next issue.
One effect you might be experiencing is over-familiarity. I find magazines fascinating for a while, then you understand their house style, the quirks of the recurrent columns, their political stance, and you know what they are going to say even before you read. Even when they say the opposite of what you were expecting the reach their conclusion by travelling through territory you've been through many times before.

Weirdly, I've recently been experiencing this with Twitter. Every opinion unfolds mechanically. Even the curve balls are predictable at a statistical level.

I am long-time fun of Economist, but unfortunately the quality decreases. E.g. last issue EU is frozen and claim so many people will die in Europe due to high energy prices.

First, I find they did not explain their model well. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Second, the correlation does not imply causation or whether extrapolations are solid. It looks like there might be mistakes on that front and there are many spurious correlations (e.g. high energy in the past might mean high unemployment).

Third, so far the country experiencing freezing is the Ukraine due to power outages. Just one sentence mentioning, whether in Ukraine for sure many people are going to die due to distrusted power, heating or water supplies.

So far on general economics, I love:

Though, it is hard for me to find comprehensive Economist replacement.

I took out an Economist subscription for the first time this year, and I've found it really mixed. Lots of interesting articles, but I'll agree the analysis isn't as good as many other sources I've seen (in my view).

What's the bigger blocker for me is the anti-LGBT+ lean. For example the most recent article on trans rights: November 19th - 25th 2022 issue, "Transgressions", page 29 in print. It's not even the insidious "see both sides" argument you see often, but just unbalanced rehash of old claims with no analysis, research, or further thought. In the same issue, The Economist jumped to the defence of Qatar (“In defence of Qatar”, page 18 in print) with the argument that while Qatar was terrible for LGBT+ rights, so have been pervious world cup holders. To me that’s not even an argument, that’s just a defeatist “oh well it was bad before so why bother complaining”.

I’m all for accepting viewpoints that are different from my own, but when it comes to “should LGBT+ people have rights” that’s not up for debate.

I enjoy the Economist (haven't noticed any change in quality), and if I had time for a second source I would probably be leaning towards the New Statesman. I somewhat foolishly subscribed to the New European after learning about it on "The Rest is Politics" (podcast with Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell); it is unashamedly far-left and mostly just full of rants - so I wouldn't recommend that.
I think others have given good recommendations, but will add the Atlantic and New Yorker.

Also agree that a problem with The Economist is that it is always overtly pushing a particular view of the view world (rooted in a faith in the rationality of markets), which is coupled with fairly strong advice/prescriptions in much of the writing.

The Financial Times is simply excellent. In my opinion it's substantially better than what even The Economist used to be like ~10 years ago. Almost every article has high quality, there's no clickbait content and the coverage of topics is very appropriate for someone who wants to keep informed on geopolitics and international finance. Though it's not as broad as what The Economist covers, you won't find as much coverage of developing nations.
The alternative to The Economist is a well curated collection of RSS feeds. Identify a set of intelligent blogs/columnists who post regularly, put their feeds into an OPML file, and you have a great alternative.

Added bonus: you can have X and anti-X perspectives for most values of X.

Just a PSA for anyone in the US, typically your public library will have access to digital products like Libby or Flipster. These products typically include access magazines (such as the Economist), newspapers and websites for free.

As to OPs question, I typically try to use an array of sources for news and try to support publications that I cannot access freely / through other means or feel strongly about supporting (such as local news and publications like Harpers).

I bailed on the Economist a couple of years ago after at least a couple decades...thought I was the only one who felt it had declined. I haven't really found a good replacement still.

If nothing else, the pain they put me through to end the subscription was enough to prevent me from ever signing up again.

I'm fine with The Economist's Classical Liberal POV (per Adam Smith et al). I unsubscribed become of their support for the Iraq War. (Which admittedly they regretted some years later. But I won't forgive them.)

Fortunately, Western media (at least) is flush with Classical Liberal POV. So it's not like I suffered from the omission.

As for challenging and interesting and immediately relevant, I keep returning to David Roberts' Volts podcast. Explains where the rubber meets the road on the most important topic of the day, climate crisis. The explainers are just terrific. The episodes about the US's Inflation Reduction Act, the most important industrial policy legislation in a generation, have been illuminating. Of course, economics is central to the whole story.

As for a non-center-right take on economic issues, I'm enjoying Bethany McLean's work. Most recently her podcast Capitalisn't. (Her cohost Luigi Zingales is mostly a dink, so I speed thru his monologuing.)

I haven't really found a leftist economics narrative to consume. Two years ago, I binged on some MMT stuff. Alas, it still feels too fledgling, too exploratory. In short, I'm eager for narratives with some predictive power.

I'm almost certain u/dredmorbius can offer awesome recommendations. Their smart about about this kind of stuff.

Oh. The books Mine: The Hidden Rules of Ownership and Debt: The First 5000 Years were fun. Sadly, I haven't gotten to Piketty's books yet.

Guessing you're British or a UK resident?

If you're not reading Private Eye already I would highly recommend it.

I think the thing that will suit you most is probably the FT. It's a similar grown-up feeling paper with a strong financial lean but still covers general interest news in a clear way. It's one of the few newspapers that I read that still has some longer form content.

I see that you're UK based -- If you still have an active UK university email, you can usually get a subscription for free. See this page for details:

For me the main problem with most of these publications is that although oftentimes they couch things in data and science they are mostly opinion-based so their prognostications are quite fallible. They remind me of the "The Standard" and "Business 2.0" etc., of the aughts. While things were going up, they seemed to catch the wave and ride it, but as the bubble burst their faults due to lack of any underlying structure or rigor became evident.

So too with The Economist, not to speak of things like The Atlantic etc., who rely mostly on opinion or tenuous data.

Now, often The Economist tries to rely on some science/data but they have their own ideology and that leads to them making mistakes as well. I wish they relied more on science and data over ideology (such as free markets or globalization, etc., not to say those are bad, but just have some skepticism and criticism. They often took globalization to be an unqualified good)

What are your thoughts on the journalism in The Atlantic?

Are you reading Le Monde Diplomatique in French? If so, you might enjoy Courrier International.
Always been a fan of Harper's for a more left/artistic perspective.
I've just renewed my subscription. I haven't found anything better than The Economist. Their daily news summary is great.
What a timely post. My subscription to "The Atlantic" is coming up for renewal in a few months, and I plan to simply let it lapse. That was my last magazine subscription left standing, and 2023 will be the first time in roughly 40 years that I won't be subscripting to any magazines.

The writing has always been center-left, but with introspective tendencies. Articles would generally critique conservative political positions, but thoughtfully in a well-reasoned manner. And they would be just as likely to examine excesses from the cultural left also.

After Trump entered office, the magazine began a rapid descent. Today you find as much "clickbait" in the printed magazine as you do on the web property (they were previously quite distinct). Articles are frequently hyperbolic, and read like Reddit comments on /r/LateStageCapitalism. But most damningly, the REASONING seems to be gone now. It feels like reading a propaganda outlet.

Maybe this is an artifact of emerging authors coming of age during the social media era? Maybe it's a byproduct of print media's financial decline, and pressure to compete with online entertainment? Whatever the case may be, everything feels like a lazy echo chamber now. I dearly miss writing that makes me think.

It’s digital only, but is worth a look
Wall Street Journal (except the op-ed pages, which are comically extreme). Financial Times is also very good, I prefer WSJ.

They provide actual reporting and not just narrative; WSJ reporting broke the news of the Theranos fraud for example.

I think the only real alternative is the FT. Yes, it's not a weekly but they have lots of in-depth reporting (and the Economist refers to itself as a newspaper anyway).
FT is good and seems to be getting better.
Financial Times[1] is my primary source of high-quality European and international news. Politico Europe[2] and WSJ[3] come next.

I also recommend Spiegel International[4], Le Monde Diplomatique[5], and Nikkei Asia[6] for the German, French, and Japanese perspectives respectively.







Another vote for FT (Financial Times). It has good insights not just on economics and politics but also has decent coverage of topics on AI, Travel, and Science.
I was in a similar place, an Economist subscriber, that stopped ~5yrs ago due to a decrease in writing quality. I switched to:

Financial Times - lead newspaper into Wirecard scandal

Süddeutsche Zeitung (in German) - famed for Panama Papers investigation

I complement it with readings from:

IEEE Spectrum (Science & Tech)

The Markup (Society)

Had you considered that this might be a macro problem? The last several decades had a stable narrative with special places for certain institutions. With the narrative world order unwinding, institutions are having a hard time seeming authoritative (despite desperate attempts) because they cannot figure out the “right” new narratives. If this diagnosis is correct, you are unlikely to find much satisfaction from shifting sources — it’s the end of an era, and a whiplash from the last few decades of “over stability” ignoring several distinct changes and having them pile up and bubble out all at once.
I read Bloomberg and listen to CNBC. I think at bottom knowing what’s really happening matters to finance peoples’ bottom lines, and that has a way of focusing the mind and cutting through partisan blinders.
>It doesn't align exactly with my political values but I've always found the writing to be of high quality

I'm just going to throw it out there that maybe your political values are beginning to overwhelm your other opinions?

The Economist's content is unique outside of, maybe, the Financial Times in your list. You're certainly not going to find much similarity with The Jacobin, they're polar opposites politically.

The best replacement for The Economist is probably a major newspaper.

I agree with others that I don't understand where you're coming from in some sort of decline or big change in The Economist. Maybe if you're overly obsessed with the editorials, which I've always skipped, something has changed. But the basic news reporting remains more or less the same as it has been for the 5+ years I've been subscribing.

I subscribed to Le Monde Diplomatique for a year and rarely found more than 1 or 2 articles a month that were interesting info I couldn't get elsewhere.

I subscribe to Foreign Affairs and find it to be 80% boring junk on the same set of topics about the rise of China, what to do about Russia, etc. The occasional article or book review on a less covered country makes it sort of worth the subscription price to me.

If you're just looking for something like "interesting book reviews," I'd take a look at the Literary Review. Or maybe the Times Literary Supplement. And New York Review of Books and London Review of Books offer much more in-depth reviews, but reading between the lines it seems like the op is saying The Economist is too liberal for them and is not going to like the tenor of most of what's in these.

What narrative manipulation have you seen from The Economist? I haven’t noticed it so perhaps I am being manipulated! I’d love to hear your insight!
Project-syndicate is a great option:

I’ve also enjoyed Adam tooze’s newsletter after seeing it crop up on hacker news lately:

I used to be an Financial Times fanboy, but sad to say, it’s been going downhill for some time now , for news stories I should add. I used to get the economist, but found with my work rotation (4-6 week remote areas) - I was simply not reading it, then I was intrigued by a colleague reading the spectator- never really my politics, but I gave it a read and have been reading it since, I would read private eye if I could get it (not seen it in Vietnam). I also now read the telegraph- that and spectator and FT all online, again, I take a contrary bevies on any political bias, but the writing is good and enjoyable. Maybe I should take another look at the economist- in the past it was superb, it excelled in all fields, often better than supposedly specialised magazines (yeah - I ditched new scientist soon after graduating)!
This older comment I made a while ago might come in handy:

E: It is basically a somewhat long list of newspapers and periodicals from across the world.

Non-western publications of possible interest: in english, mostly free in french, subscription

While I too enjoy Der Spiegel, the Economist is fairly unique in that it has a classical liberal and globalist slant. There's much less nationalistic perspective in their reporting which can be a breath of fresh air.

Lately I've enjoyed Politico for at least sometimes sharing this ambition. It's very US-centric, even in the Politico EU variant, but there's far less national exceptionalism than its peers in my opinion.

I completely agree that the Economist has been slowly declining in quality over the last decade, which saddens me. Clickbaiting is a universal problem now, and I don't think there's any direct competitor that's better. I've come to terms with diversifying my reading list and reading much less of each instead.

I feel like I asked HN the same question about the Economist a couple years ago. I still really appreciate its broad approach to world news and its slanted-but-two-sided view of politics. Honestly the replacement you're looking for to understand international reality is probably some mix of very costly Stratfor briefings and France24 and DW. (Jacobin? seriously? is al Jazeera too well sourced for you?) Internal US politics aren't covered very well by the Economist so you won't be missing to much by switching to this blend, and most US politics can unfortunately be inferred six months in the future by watching other nascent authoritarian states anyway.

Wait for it... Dang is gonna ban me again. BUT I'M DRUNK! Damn it.

Some people do read Playboy for the articles. In fact, I did read a Lee Iaccoca interview in Playboy once, it was excellent from what I remember. OP might want to seriously consider looking into that often-pigeonholed publication.
I had subscribed to the economist and it was a nightmare to cancel the subscription (they expected a phone call and would not accept a cancellation by email). I will never ever subscribe the economist again for dark patterns
I follow Nikkei very frequently for tech news and I enjoy Barron's for market viewpoints.

My view is that Western Europe has become less relevant to North American culture, technology, and finance over the past five or so years. Latin America and Asia are now far more relevant to North American life and the future thereof.

I share your thoughts about the Economist and I feel it has gone downhill. I wonder how much of that is due to the cultural and economic decline of the UK and the public narrative shift accompanying that decline. Brexit brought some very unsavory and counterproductive sentiments to the fore.

Curious, have you tried to see where the authors of the articles you like before went?

You can always follow them instead of following the publication.

If they're still there, then perhaps it's a sign that it's management

I haven't seen it mentioned, but whenever I read articles from Foreign Affairs, I'm quite impressed. Though of course the focus is, as you may imagine, foreign affairs...

I share your sentiment re Economist.

The Times Literay Supplement is high quality and always interesting. Everything is through the prism of book reviews so perhaps not as much current affairs as you’d like. But still worth looking at.
mzd348 has a weekly "print edition" (you can download the pdf from their site) and I feel it's not too far from The Economist in terms of subject matter, and goes into more depth for EU issues. The writing quality isn't as good though. Not sure what their political leaning is.

The New Statesman isn't bad but has some problems: delivery delays to the US (maybe not an issue for you) and lots of "advertorials". The writing quality is usually good. It has a left/labour leaning.

The Week is a bit more balanced- but you might find it better to set up a RSS reader and get info from different sources (I have used Inoreader Pro for a 4-5 years now and love it)
Had a quick look and couldn’t see this suggestion anywhere else so apologies if is has already been mentioned. Why not bypass these kinds of magazines all together and subscribe to a few writers or publications on substack? There is some very high quality stuff on there and you can explore your particular interests deeper. Some good places to start might be the Pragmatic Engineer for tech posts and Glenn Greenwald for investigative journalism.
Not quite a replacement given that it's quarterly, but the nascent Asterisk Mag seems like it would at least fill the long-form essay niche:

I'm still a serious economist reader and podcast listener, especially for their special reports, but I've also started to rely more and more on a curated RSS feed of substacks & blogs.

It's really crazy to see that the infamous Rothschild family has a 25% stake in this magazine. Not to mention obscure European shell companies, holding God-knows-what else.


    Exor N.V. (43.40%)
All of them have sunken to clickbait articles and titles IMO - case in point: (although the article itself is alright, even if quite brief).

I think you're better off just getting access to specific long read articles when they're released.

The perceived decline in quality might just be caused by a very real increase in the quality of ‘amateur’ journalism.

I noticed this both during covid and Ukraine coverage. The quality of journalism that is now available online is in my opinion much greater than any news organisation can put out. Often because the amateur journalist are people covering event from on the ground as it is happening.

I think Le Monde Diplomatique could be a good choice
Covid demonstrated that all mainstream media in the UK are controlled by the government. I ditched both my Economist and FT subscriptions in favour of independent journalists. I would have ditched the Economist anyway, it's become demented. I've been glancing at Foreign Affairs, but not sufficiently yet to decide on subscribing.
Have a look at: Any page that needs to be bypassed is worthy of a glance; limiting yourself to just one source runs the risk of 'rose tinted glasses' syndrome.
You could look at the LRB (London Review of Books). While obviously it is mostly book reviews there are other essays in there too. The writing is rather literary, which may or may not be a positive, but it is entirely free of clickbait. It's probably the nearest thing to a left-wing equivalent of The Economist.
> It doesn't align exactly with my political values

Which values? I find it to be very analytic and dry in a good way.

Jacobin is directionally correct but I'd love to hear of any better/less problematic publications
I have similar feelings about the magazine. I think a lot of the oddness of their views are down to the writers not really being 'digital natives'. There's a hint of them being slightly confused and fearful when it comes to stories with a technological angle to them.
WSJ i read everyday and don't feel like i'm grating my brain against unlike other publications
Further ideas

Aside from the FT,

Read the BoE/ECB publications.

Follow topics you're interested in via REPEC - see subscription options at the base of the page.

Follow the econ Mastodon

I guess as a Dutch speaker, I am somewhat “spoiled” by the existence of 360 Magazine [1].

They don't write their articles, but translate into Dutch news articles from all over the world. It really makes for high-quality reading.

In the last few years I've moved away from following large publications and toward following individuals. This keeps the average quality of the content very high and allows me view information that --while accurate-- might not make it past an editorial board.
cies /s

It'd probably be FT for me, they follow a "just the facts" approach mostly.

I wanted to throw in NZZ, but I'm afraid they only have German issues. Le Monde Diplomatique is nice for their longer reports. That's where I first learned that sand will run out somewhere in the 2050s due to concrete.
Maybe Foreign Policy? Can't say I've read any issues in the past few years, but back when I last read it, it appeared to fit your requisites reasonably well (perhaps a bit too US-centric for your liking).

This chart shows FP as a more factual, slightly closer to the Center than The Economist (EDIT: Wrong)

Source for the chart:

EDIT: I misunderstood the chart. It shows FP as more factual and slightly more opinionated than The Economist, while labelling both as "Center" (without relative comparisons) ideologically.

> Preferably something with a UK/Euro/Global focus, not just US.

Probably something that is not in English language, since those usually have huge US or UK focus. (Even news like are mostly about UK).

Unless things have changed in the last few years, I'm a bit skeptical of your claim of avid readership if you're referring to The Economist as a magazine and not a newspaper.
Big fan of the Spectator and the Guardian Weekly: They the best exponents of right and left wing thinking from the UK respectively. For best results read both.
Perhaps Mother Jones would be an interesting alternative?

Though American and generally US-focused, The Atlantic covers a lot of world affairs, although it isn't as news-rich as The Economist.
Try the Spectator:
I know some will call me biased, or worse. But I think that is doing an honest journalistic job covering politics related to Russia, it is definitely different perspective compared to western news. One thing I tweaked is to add background CSS color to <em> element with Stylus extension as they use it for extensive quotation in articles, much more visible when it is editorial and when it is quotes.

``` em { background: #ccd } ```

I'd vote for FT from your list. It is worth it just for Janan Ganesh's columns, the rest is just a bonus.
The FT is excellent, particularly online.
Wall Street Journal?

It doesn’t have an euro focus though.

Just read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. There's a beautiful metanarrative in there about first the "thought leaders" and then eventually the artists, and then eventually the media declining as they grovel and collectively are unwilling to check each other basically in the name of political correctness(I won't spoil it beyond that, great book). "A society gets the military it deserves" -TR Fehrenbach, This Kind of War. The same is true of the media. I agree with what you said on the Economist. Probably 4-6 years ago, I saw the same thing happen with the Atlantic. Very sad. I use HN because it pulls from so many sources. Ill still enjoy stuff from the Econ here and there. 2 pieces of advice: Diversify your sources, and second, develop a system of personal morality. Too few people in our society have one of those... which means too few people who are philosophers have one, and therefore too few artists, and too few journalists. And eventually, people like you and me can recognize that not only is the bar low.... someone stole the bar and is chasing the contestants around with it beating them at random. Cheers.
Obvious who's going to defend The Economist:
It's not really the same thing as the Economist in terms of news coverage, but:

Bills itself as the next evolution of Economics and "Changes in economic thinking can change the world, for the better. That’s the core belief that inspires Evonomics"

Here's a story by Tim O'Reilly about Elon Musk:

Why Elon Musk Isn’t Superman : The Betting Economy vs. The Operating Economy

We are living in a golden age of high quality journalism - it just coexists with lots of crap.

For example, on the Left you have N+1 and Progressive. On the Center you have Atlantic and Foreign Affairs. Conservatives have National Affair, American Affairs, and National Review.

But none of them is a biweekly paper/magazine intended to keep you informed of all major current events from an international perspective.

Realistically, you have to go with a daily: Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post.

We don’t have weekly or biweekly papers in the US.

I like Foreign Policy
Best to keep both FT and Economist.
Years ago before electronic devices, The Economist was my "flight fodder" in that I only really bought a copy when I had a long flight and it was long and dense enough that I'd never get through it all. I haven't read it in awhile. It's disappointing to hear the quality has gone down (if true).

You're not suggesting otherwise but I feel compelled to mention it anyway for completeness: every publication has a political bent. It's not just the editorials or even the reporting itself but also the choice on what to publish. That's not neccessarily a bad thing unless that political bent means the publication has a tenuous relationship with the truth.

I'm curious what political stance you have an issue with, as in are you more left-leaning or right-leaning.

The Economist falls into the same bucket I'd put some other long-form print media in like the Atlantic and the New Yorker: it's center-right, specifically neoliberal. That's not necessarily bad. In fact I'd read good content in all 3 of these. You just need to be aware of the lens through which they see the world. The Economist I always found to be pro-Europe (pro-EU and pro-NATO) as one example.

Some might object to the "center-right" label here. To me, that's just evidence of how far the pendulum has swung with the Overton Window in how far right-wing politics currently skews, not just in the US. CNN is a center-right media outlet, for example. Coverage of Israel-Palestine is a prime example of just how one-sided this is.

More progressive media outlets are slim pickings honestly. For general news coverage, within limits surprisingly al-Jazeera ranks pretty highly. I say "within limits" because it has the same blind spot all state media does: the state it represents. The BBC is another prime example of this.

In my experience, Le Monde Diplomatique is a very good newspaper. Because they don't make money from advertising but from subscriptions. But their bias is a bit too left-wing, and not nuanced enough.
In my experience, Le monde diplomatic is a very good newspaper. Because they don't make money from advertising but from subscriptions. But their bias is a bit too left-wing, and not nuanced enough.
Not a comprehensive magazine/paper, but I really like Matt Levine's Money Stuff newsletter; mentioning it in case you haven't checked it out yet.
I've been reading The Economist, on and off, for about 17 years. Since about a year or so I've come back to reading it each week, after a pause of a couple of years. I also did notice the same change of quality as you also noticed, and I'm not really convinced that it's only caused by me noticing stuff all of a sudden.

As a specific example, them calling whatever the Trump supporters say about the 2020 elections as the "Big Lie", capitalised, it's something that they wouldn't have done ~10 years ago. I'm talking about the same magazine that had a 3-page mostly congratulatory article on Blair long after the start of the Iraq war (I'd say around 2010-2012). They didn't capitalised any "L-s" in "lies" back then, I'm not even sure they called out Blair as being a liar.

As an answer to your specific question, for the moment I'm also trying out Foreign Affairs. They're even more ideologically one-sided than The Economist, but at least in their case they wear their ideology on their sleeve, so to speak, which makes it more bearable for me to read them. Their book reviews (including the longer "review essays", as they call them) though are less ideologically one-sided, or at least so I found them, and imo they're intellectually worth more than many of the featured articles.

For example the September-October issue has this excellent review called: "Old World Order - The Real Origin of International Relations" [1], commenting on a book called "Before the West: The Rise and Fall of Eastern World Orders" [2], which presented the "birth" of international relations via Mongol rule in most of Eurasia starting with the 1200s. In so doing it also makes some passing references to Russians Eurasians like Nikolai Trubetzkoy, Vernadsky or Gumilyov, and what their writings and theories might mean for modern Russia. Really interesting stuff and pretty on point, which stuff I didn't see mentioned in almost any issue of The Economist (where the underlying belief is that the West is fighting the Russian Asiatic Horde, and they leave it at that).

I've also been a FT reader for 20 years, again, with big on-an-off periods, but, the same as with The Economist, I found that their biases have changed quite a lot, in a way that I don't like (there are exceptions, like Martin Wolf, with whom I mostly don't agree on a political level but which has been mostly on point, plus their finance-related reporting is really good, at least for non-experts like me).



I find Quillette - very solid, all clear bylines so you can understand the background and perspective of the author.
The Spectator has - generally high quality writing - a quirky (but data driven) approach - a longer history than any other magazine - a UK focus - a right wing bent, but with plenty of left wing ( or apolitical) writers for balance. Might be a solution? I gave up on the Economist after 20years 20 years ago, for much the same reasons you state!