Economising

Reading The Economist is an art form. It takes practice, perseverance, and a finely-honed skill.  

Superficially, the newspaper looks innocuous enough.  A mere 100 pages of less than A4 paper, printed in three columns for the most part, with a few pictures and illustrations. At the front of the book are the Leaders. 

The Leaders, some six or seven of them, set the tone for the whole.  They are gritty, rigorous and uncompromising.  Usually a good half of them aim to solve a problem like Northern Ireland, nuclear energy or monetarism, in their few hundred words.  They bespeak profound self-confidence and an abiding sense of suffering no fools.  To read them is to be humbled. 

The following sections on world politics, finance and science come as light relief after this sternly headmasterish lecture.  But they are still serious and provocative - almost to a fault.  Even more compact than the Leaders, to understand them fully, to engage with them in a way which does justice to the density of thinking contained in them, takes time.  Multiply that time by the many articles which make up the unique brew of The Economist and you have a goodly chunk of reading. 

And that is the problem.  To be a true Economist, you must get through this ration every week; without fail.  To be a rigorous Economist is probably a full-time job; to be a qualified Economiser - the highest order of Reader Pragmatic - is not, but it is a considerable achievement.

The Leaders are obviously indispensable.  Or almost; sometimes the tail-enders are hardly earth-shattering.  Thereafter you are on your own.   One of the attractive qualities of The Economist is its totally quixotic choice of subject-matter.  Never mind if the rest of the world's press has homed in on a topic, it may often be that the most the newspaper will deign to offer is an analysis of the analysis rather than the event itself.  This means that most news items - which are anyway not topically hot since they appear on a weekly basis - are susceptible to a mix and match approach.  If you have a clear enough idea of what you want, you can always find it. 

Perhaps this is the basic strength of The Economist; it does not force your reading into preconceived grooves.  It allows you to make up your own news and viewspaper as you go along.  It credits you with sufficient intelligence not to need to be spoonfed all the way.

At the bottom of the scale of unmissability there are the special sections.  It has to be said that for a magazine which prides itself so much on its fierce independence, these are a sell-out.  Not so much in what they write, but by their existence primarily as advertising vehicles.  They are not essential, and not even particularly rewarding. 

But The Economist as a whole is completely essential and deeply rewarding.  That it manages to be both is ultimately a tribute to the one person in the world who reads every word printed - not once, but twice: the Editor.

(26.7.86)

Index