This post on The Economist’s rather bizarre liking for the Bush government (found via Brad DeLong’s post) only highlights what is wrong with The Economist. While it is still often better than the competition, but nothing like as good as it once was.

There is no way in which the likes of Newsweek can be compared to The Economist. It is much better, and obviously so. The Wall Street Journal and the FT are the only real competition.

The Economist also used to be much better than it now is. Its editorial sections used to make well reasoned argument for free markets. Now they merely push a free market ideology.

I think the change is partly due to the fact that it is hard to argue in the same when you are arguing for is now the received wisdom. It is telling that some of the best editorial now is on issues where the free market argument still runs counter to public opinion — such as immigration.

I used to read every issue of The Economist from cover to cover. I now buy it occasionally and read a few good bits. I think some people have simply not lost the habit yet.

I now read more on-line, relying on a mixture of news wires, primary sources (everything from company announcements to the Office of National Statistics) and blogs (I have 25 feeds in my reader, some of which are from aggregators). If newspapers and magazines want my time they have to have added value I cannot find on the net.