Why The Economist is So Successful

I’m a loyal reader of The Economist. Clive Cook has an excellent piece in the National Journal on why The Economist has been so successful – both as a journalistic powerhouse and as a business. There’s a similar article in the TimesOnline (UK) which discusses the state of the magazine — er, "newspaper" as it likes to call itself — as its top editor is stepping down.

There are many reasons why The Economist rocks: single text for a global, intelligent audience. Topics span politics, business, books, and science. Consistently serious and hilarious coverage of the world. On and on and on. But for me, one reason trumps all: you can’t pigeonhole the magazine’s bias.

Most know The Economist as right-of-center since it’s staunchly free-market, pro-capitalist. Yet they endorsed John Kerry, they support abortion rights, etc.

People who haven’t changed their mind in 15 years or show no signs of confliction on tough topics are not very interesting. For me, there’s nothing more boring than hearing about some news event or product release or whatever and you know exactly where a commentator/pundit is going to stand. I know that Paul Krugman will always despise anything Bush does economically. So I don’t read him. I know that certain Mac aficionados are going to say the latest from Microsoft is always evil. So I don’t read them.

I want to read people who are guided by an underlying intellectual philosophy, not ideology. I want people who admit newfound uncertainties about positions they’ve held for a decade.

Franklin Foer Named Editor of the New Republic

Franklin Foer has been named editor of the New Republic. I love all these young 30 somethings taking over. TNR is not one of my top reads, but I read it when I can. I think daily newspapers are in big trouble from a business model perspective, but long form journalism and magazines will endure the next decade just fine, I think, unless someone invents screens that don’t strain eyes. I

‘d love to write for TNR and its kin someday.

Who Are You? instead of What Do You Do?

When I first meet someone one of the first questions I’ll ask is, "So what do you do?" Almost always I’ll get some generic response like, "I’m a software entrepreneur" or "I’m a teacher." I do the exact same thing when someone mistakes me for a 30-something and I’ll say "Oh, I’m just an entrepreneur and writer." Not very helpful. With only one question, I’m hesitant to dive into my full bio because that comes across as arrogant.

Umair Haque, in a recent parenthetical, said that only in the U.S. do you ask "what do you do?" as the first question at a mixer.

Maybe this is because in America we unfortunately value what someone is doing as much more important than who someone is.

Is there a better question to ask when meeting someone for the first time that will elicit a richer perspective on who they are? Obviously, in the virtual world, a personal blog does this magnificently!

The Role of Psychotherapy

An interesting op/ed in today’s NYT about the role of psychotherapy in a world celebrating "hard sciences" and exact measurements. Money quote:

Religion has historically been the language for people to talk about the things that mattered most to them, aided and abetted by the arts. Science has become the language that has helped people to know what they wanted to know, and get what they wanted to get. Psychotherapy has to occupy the difficult middle ground between them, but without taking sides. Since it is narrow-mindedness that we most often suffer from, we need our therapists to resist the allure of the fashionable certainties.