The Economist in a Geographical Perspective

The age of the weekly magazine appears to be fading fast, yet amid talk of budget cuts and lower circulation, The Economist, continues to be a prestige information source around the globe, regardless of how many people read it. Although a British publication, The Economist prides itself on covering the globe, yet how wide is their breadth and how deep is their depth?

The structure of The Economist is methodical and predictable. Weekly sections cover the US, the UK, the Americas, Asia, the Middle East & Africa, and Europe. An International section tackles heavier thematic subjects spanning larger geographical areas. To assess the breadth and depth of coverage, I tracked stories in these sections, excluding the UK and the US sections. (US and UK coverage was ignored because they each have a dedicated section; their presence in the ma

gazine is clearly dominant.) I then tabulated the number of articles f

or each country, counting stories where the country in question was either the main or dual focus of the article. I also excluded stories that had a thematic focus, or articles that arbitrarily dealt with issues facing an entire continent.

Tracking stories for 10 weeks, from September 25 to November 26, in the printed version of The Economist, I discovered that the magazine covered 77 different countries in substantial depth within the political sections. Accepting that there are 195 countries in the world, The Economist reported on roughly 39% of the world in 10 weeks. Compared to other weekly magazine publications, this is a wide spread. Depth, however, is a different story. Examining the map to the right, 51 countries, or 66% of the total covered, were mentioned only once or twice in the ten weeks.

Looking further into the most closely covered nations (graph below), a clear British perspective carries beyond the official UK section. The heavily referenced countries are either close allies (US, France, Germany, EU), major trading partners (Brazil, Japan, Canada, Mexico, India), or famously unstable (Israel). India and, arguably, Israel are the only non-Western countries with a high number of mentions. This could be because these countries are inherently newsworthy, or it could be because of their relationships with Britain.

How one views these statistics depends on what one seeks to gain from The Economist. Readers who peruse the finance and economics sections might care little for the political news updates and prefer reading the most relevant stories regardless of whether there is broad global coverage. Others, however, might wish to read about countries not normally covered in mainstream outlets, or about fringe political issues with overlooked effects.

In my opinion, with the shift to a 24-hour news cycle, many articles in The Economist are not current by the time issues hit stands. Yes, the magazine offers in-depth portrayals of events, yet to justify $6.99 for a physical copy, some changes might be necessary for the print version to continue to thrive.

I argue that the magazine should separate the Middle East & Africa section into more appropriate categories: perhaps North Africa & the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. Evaluating the story distribution, 21 stories related to African stories, while 22 stories featured Middle Eastern countries. Africa is a significantly larger region than the Middle East, so the representation is disproportionate.

This is just one example of how The Economist could diversify their reporting. The Economist could further bolster reporting of central Asia and the Pacific. Looking at the map, these regions were also underreported, perhaps because both regions are lumped into the Asia section. Overall, print journalism is in a period of reinvention and The Economist, although a standard of journalism, might need a facelift as well.