Here. Won’t renew his subscription to The Economist. Due to them fronting the supposed “death of Earth” “anthropocene” era, like where we are now, only death. We’re all dead.
The cost has always been steep. The best deal I’m currently being offered is $230 for a two-year extension. That’s a lot of money. The same amount will buy me two dozen e-books, a tall stack of DVDs, or half an iPad.
What I’ve traditionally received in exchange for that high price tag was solid analysis that put the mostly superficial fare in Canada’s national newspapers to shame. I was happy to pay for – and support – The Economist‘s grownup, realistic, nuanced, and informed perspective on the world.
But that was before this publication chose to substitute critical thinking for cheerleading with respect to global warming. That was before it decided it was good policy to pepper all sorts of unrelated stories with gratuitous references to climate change. (For example, see this piece masquerading as an obit of television actor Peter Falk, this one on the death of an al-Qaeda operative in Somalia, and this coverage of the drug war in Latin America.)
One way of seeing it: Guy doesn’t understand.
Legacy media are stuck with stupid, out of date stories they cannot depart from. Just cannot. Even if they knew their stories were not making any sense, they’d have to stand by them. They will go under before they reform.
Follow UD News at Twitter!