Over the last couple of days, I came across a few short posts (here, here, and here) from people at my new favorite economics department. I agree wholeheartedly, especially with this:
But we must deplore and, so far as possible, overcome the evils of habitual newspaper reading. These evils are, chiefly, three: first, the waste of much time and mental energy in reading unimportant news and opinions, and premature, untrue, or imperfect accounts of important matters; second, the awakening of prejudices and the enkindling of passions through the partisan bias or commercial greed of newspaper managers; third, the loading of the mind with cheap literature and the development of an aversion for books and sustained thought.
Read that again while thinking about the Herald Journal. Try not to laugh...
3 comments:
There was no time in my life that I felt better about my social/political awareness than when we had a subscription to The Economist (paid for in airline miles, of course).
I knew that I was reading
a) was well researched
b) contained minimal political spin
c) was written in an intelligent way with vocabulary to ward off all charlatans
d) was likely relevant in one way or another.
In short, after a year of reading it, I concluded that if some story wasn't in The Economist, it wasn't worth reading.
I love The Economist. I just wish it wasn't every week--I can't keep up and I end up throwing them away unread. I couldn't take the pain, so I didn't renew. Maybe after tenure/kids older...
I know what you mean. You know that slightly irreverent feeling you get when you toss out an old Ensign or Priesthood/Relief Society manual? I got the same feeling when I would toss out an unread Economist issue.
Post a Comment