<p>I usually read the articles on the front page of the Economist website, usually the most recommended or read ones in the website. I find that most of them lack any argument.
Many prominent people and intellectuals read and recommend the Economist because it is of high quality, and some also said it’s a good practice for improving critical thinking skills by working with arguments of an article. I’m wondering why many of the Economist articles I read have no arguments but just report facts. Two examples of such recent articles are:</p>
<p>[A</a> history of the world in 100 objects: Creative impulses | The Economist](<a href=“http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15172496]A”>Creative impulses)</p>
<p>[A</a> history of the world in 100 objects: Creative impulses | The Economist](<a href=“Creative impulses”>Creative impulses)</p>
<p>Will such articles that merely report facts be not really useful if one’s main goal of reading the Economist were to sharpen one’s critical thinking skills?
Also, if the number of articles you can read is limited, is it a good practice to pick the ones that are most recommended or most read?</p>
<p>Their business model is to produce content, lots of content. Some of it is opinion - e.g., the recent trend of naming more columnists - some is news, some is graphical, some is just fact. This model is why they’re thriving; they’re adding depth while most everyone else is cutting back.</p>
<p>As to reading the magazine, you’ll notice the more you know about a subject the more you recognize their “news” articles glide over huge holes and can be slanted while taking an objective or “from on high” tone. You’ll notice they’re as often wrong as everyone else.</p>
<p>I recommend reading the columnists, notably Lexington (America, though the current Lex is still finding his way), Buttonwood (markets), Charlemagne (Europe), etc. They all have blogs and they will often comment on what they’ve written. Otherwise, the finance section is still probably their best for depth, followed by business. You can skim whatever strikes your eye in the country / regions coverage because it’s variable in quality. The special sections can be terrific, particularly the ones on science and technology.</p>
<p>Lergnom: Thank you for your explanation and recommendation of which section to read!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No different than any journalist, it’s easy to write only about “facts” that support your position/belief. Critical thinking comes from recognizing the point of view in the article.</p>
<p>bluebayou: That might be another way to practice critical thinking, but when people speak of the Economist articles as useful for improving critical thinking, don’t they usually mean in the other sense (detecting and evaluating arguments of an article) instead of only using the facts reported to infer the author’s view (what you said)?</p>
<p>good question, todpose. I personally love reading the Economist, bcos of its different perspective/slant. It’s also written at a much higher level than a US newspaper, for example. </p>
<p>I think the pieces that you should focus on are the columns, not the articles, bcos the columnists by definition are trying to sway you to their pov. (But that doesn’t mean that they will point out the flaws in their pov.)</p>
<p>I love reading the Economist as a body of work, instead of thinking that any one article is going to conclude with a this is how you should think and what you should believe. </p>
<p>As far as using the “Economist were to sharpen one’s critical thinking skills”. Yes , it’s great if you follow what’s going on in the world. But if your hoping to pick up copies and to study from, than it will just confuse you.</p>
<p>I was examining a journal article from a constitutional law professor at Georgetown and I couldn’t believe what she wrote about a topic as it was so easily disproved from multiple sources. So I looked at her sources and she quoted a journal article by another law professor though she took it a bit further from her source. I backtracked her source and she quoted a statistic from The Economist. The Economist, of course, doesn’t provide citations so it ends there. My gut feel is that the Economist just made something up or took something from an unreliable source.</p>
<p>I was pretty shocked because so many hold it in such high esteem.</p>
<p>I’ve noticed a general decline in the quality of journalism from highly regarded sources. My guess is that financial pressures have pushed outlets towards quantity instead of quality.</p>