Most people know that at an intellectual level, of course. But it's all too easy to read something like an Economist article and come away thinking "oh, I learned a lot / have a decent understanding of this issue". A lot of that comes down to the editorial style and self-assured tone of the writing. It helps to remember that even something like the Economist is largely written by people in their mid-20s with no particular expertise, and edited by people who may be older and wiser but also cover many different topics.
To play Devil's advocate, why is it useful to spend time learning about these types of things -- world politics, economics, even current scientific developments? Is it mainly because it's interesting (so that it's primarily entertainment)? Or is it to better yourself in some way? I think a lot of people implicitly think that this type of knowledge falls into the "bettering yourself" category, but I wonder if it's mostly for entertainment. Of course, if you are actively involved in international politics, then things look different, but I'm mainly talking about the "everyperson".
I bring this up because I go through phases where I get really into world "happenings" as described above, but then after a while I feel as though I have gained little or nothing, except emotional responses and opinions about these things, which causes no noticeable positive effect in my day-to-day life (and in fact, often affects my mental state negatively, given the amount of fear-mongering in media). Instead, I have the suspicion that all of that time would have been better spent focusing on things local: myself, friendships, family, hobbies.
It tends to give an overview of geopolitical events that do have some meaning. For instance, your entire idea of the Philippines may be that it's a US ally, has a lot of beaches and happy people. The Economist (or something similar) may then clue you in that no, actually, the country is on the edge of falling to dictatorship and in bed with China. That info is slanted, and may not be useful for you taking any substantive action; but on the other hand, it gives you a starting point if, say, you ever had a Filipino coworker. It also tells you something about the broader world, such as the fact that a lot of democracies are starting to look fragile enough that you might want to consider learning enough to decide whether that could actually be a local problem. (This isn't a screed, just an example; the Philippines may be fine and your local democracy may be strong!)
If you already knew a decent amount about the situation -- well, maybe just skip that particular article, or give it a quick skim and move on. Maybe look at the Economist as a sampler, rather than something to read cover to cover. It also has stuff like the Technology Quarterly, which actually covers a much broader range of tech concepts than, say, HN.
Partly for entertainment. But mostly because our world is hyperconnected. A looming war in Eastern Europe, combined with supply-chain shortages, apparently has a giant effect on stock prices. So, in order to understand why my pension is at risk, what I can do to secure it, or whether I should wait with buying a new car or house, , I need to know about 1) Russian Geopolitics, 2) Natural-Gas usage, 3) Supply-chains of, mostly, computer-chips, 4) inflation and then, 5, how all this ties together.
We live in a hyperconnected world where every butterfly has profound effects on my daily life. For me, that means I try to avoid reading about every butterfly or wing-flapping (i.e. the daily news) but I try to learn as much as possible about underlying mechanisms and issues.
However, there is also voting.
I was in the original wave of "cord cutters," it's been 20+ years. I have also spent many of those years abroad. My exposure to TV news is around 1-2 hours per year, in various countries.
When I visit my family back at home there is normal American news on the TV. I can only last a few seconds before I have to leave the room because the news is presented as if the audience consists of people with a 5th grade education. It is beyond insulting. I never felt this until I left TV's influence for a few years. This phenomenon is extremely exaggerated in the USA.
The point isn't to find good sources of news. I think the point is that most news, no matter how good it is, is largely pointless.
I'll pick up the economist if something in it interests me. Otherwise I largely ignore all news.
Adding friction to your news consumption makes it feel higher quality, but is of course actually totally independent of that.
But sure, the publication is in favour of capitalism. Is that really so controversial though? I thought it was pretty obvious that The Economist is neither Social Democrat, nor socialist or communist. On the other hand, a Social Democrat could probably agree with much that’s written there.
Citations Needed has a decent episode on the publication and its history: https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-98-the-refined-so...
The book discussed could be interesting though. I might pick up a copy!
It is indeed a good idea to avoid TV news.
My suggestion: Go to a news stand instead and grab a copy of The Economist. One who does that will learn much about the world. About countries one rarely hear about in other media outlets. About advances in science and technology.
In my opinion, time spent reading The Economist is not wasted.
Well that’s my 2¢ anyway ¯\＿(ツ)＿/¯