I used to read The Economist and it made me feel very informed of the world until one day I realized something. It came about because I happened to know a lot of prior detail about the article I was reading about South Africa and although I could not fault the facts listed and the depth of the article, the end result was that it was just plain wrong. The shocking thing for me was that if I didn't know more about the area then I would have been convinced that I knew enough about the subject to form an informed opinion. I believe the trick to their magazine is to create subjective (one sided) articles but to give the impression that they are objective by offering up extensive research. Kind of like a scientist who only publishes results that suit their agenda. Those results may be accurate, detailed and impressive but that's not the whole picture.

I want to know why the villains (people, corporations, governments) they attack justify their actions. Give me a soup of conflicting ideas to ponder instead of cherry picked truths.

If an author makes up my mind for me, I lose interest.

I would be a hypocrite if I didn't mention some good points about the magazine. The writing style is superb and this may sound strange but I find that my inner voice resonates with what I am reading. There are many writers yet the magazine as a whole is very coherent and humor is used expertly to liven up some dry topics.

So there you have it. Read it but don't forget that you're drinking their Kool-Aid.