I love The Economist magazine. 164 years old, intelligent reporting, objective to the point where the writers aren't even allowed to display their names (poor bastards). This is serious journalism. It's almost the opposite of what blogging and social media in general is about, because there are no personalities and trivial topics don't get covered. Yet I love it! The appeal is, simply put: The Economist is an institution and a source of in-depth analysis and news. What it does have in common with the best blogs is that it makes you think.
So when I received an email today entitled '164 year old pub embraces social media tomorrow', followed by an almost apologetic pitch by The Economist's PR agency, I had to check it out. The pitch started: "Since you’re into social media, I thought this tidbit would tickle your funny bone: The Economist, a 164 year old publication is embracing social media." I don't mean to embarrass the PR person, but I'm a fan of The Economist and so I am happy they're embracing social media. I wouldn't dare laugh at The Economist!
The venerable magazine recently launched an Audio Video edition, which is available to subscribers for free and others for $8-10 a show. It will also be "embracing iTunes and Podcasts" in the next few weeks.
Tomorrow (Tue US) The Economist launches a new online debate product called The Economist Debate Series. It's being styled as an "online Oxford-style debate". This is explained in the About page:
"The Oxford style of debate is characterised by its formality and structure. Debates are hosted by a moderator and take place between two teams, the "proposition" and the "opposition"."
In my country, New Zealand, the Oxford debate is most famous for a 1985 Oxford Union debate featuring our then Prime Minister David Lange, who argued the proposition that "nuclear weapons are morally indefensible".
In what it terms "Oxford 2.0", The Economist is running an "online variant of the Oxford rules" - whereby the proposition and the opposition are each represented by an expert speaker chosen by The Economist's staff. Users may comment on the proceedings, just as they might comment on a blog. But all comments are directed to the debate moderator, who will "raise points that are of particular interest or merit" with the two speakers. There are also "Guest participants", who are basically featured commenters.
The other way users can interact with the debate is by casting a vote for their favourite speaker. Users can get email alerts, to track the debate's progress. The Economist is also developing a Facebook group for followers of the debate, a real sign of the Web 2.0 times!
The debate which launches tomorrow is on national competitiveness. You can check out the Opening Statements here. I think this is a great way for a traditional media company to utilize social media, but still keep its high-end brand of thoughtfulness and intelligence. What's more, it drives subscriptions to the magazine, because you need to be a subscriber to interact in the debates. [Update: you actually don’t need to be a subscriber to participate in the debates. The content of the debates is free to the public, but if you want to comment you need to register with the debate site - which is free.]
The PR pitch to Read/WriteWeb ended: "Please support discourse, and may intelligence prevail!" Indeed, hoo-ray!
Update: Pluck contacted us to say that their SiteLife product is behind The Economist's debates feature. Also The Economist was one of the customers who joined Pluck in their recent announcement regarding SiteLife support for Facebook API and OpenSocial. Very cool!
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
The Economist is great, although I'm not sure the no-byline thing is really objective journalism. One of the few things I learned from history class was that the source of a quote or information is of significant importance to the reliability and bias of that information. With no bylines, you're forced to trust the publication rather than any one writer.
Posted by: Peter Cooper | December 11, 2007 6:19 AMYour quote "I think this is a great way for a traditional media company to utilize social media, but still keep its high-end brand of thoughtfulness and intelligence" is dead on.
Traditional media outfits are falling over each other, racing to come across as hip and relevant players in the new/social media scene. The problem is, too many end up looking inept in their efforts. Sounds like the Economist is staying true to itself. And as stuffy as the debate structure may sound to many ... that's the point. It's readers will appreciate and embrace it. And no doubt some new readers will be attracted by the quirky, 'high tea' feel of the whole thing. I'd forgotten how much I enjoyed Economist articles. And now you've reminded me. And you have to LOVE the way the PR agency presented this to you, blushing. Brilliant.
Posted by: Jeff Crites | December 11, 2007 7:38 AMI have been devouring the Economist for decades and I totally agree that this is a great way for them to jump into the online fray in a meaningful way. Peter, interesting point you make about sources, it is exactly what I recall from my History Prof a long time ago and this is a real differential with Blogging.
Posted by: bernard lunn | December 11, 2007 9:32 AMI'm a long time reader of the Economist-- great post and thanks for letting me know about their new features. Even though I am a subscriber of the Economist, I rarely visit their website, even though as a subscriber I can access their premium content.
I am a voracious newsreader and online news junkie. So why does the Econominist hardly ever appear on my online radar? They need to retool their site to show off just how comprehensive their publication is. They need to enter the conversation online by responding to other articles, by beefing up their technology coverage, and by allowing their impressive teams of reporters to break news on the web faster. To play to the strengths of the web online you need to be immediate and engaged with your community.
Their reputation as unbiased, spot-on, etc. (despite the fact that it's not quite true) is a tremendous strength and they should apply it to a real website, not a facsimile of their print pub.
Posted by: Alex | December 11, 2007 10:05 AMExtremely interesting. The online debating format they are experimenting with sounds very engaging. I'm looking forward to following a few debates to see how it works in practice and, as with all things labeled 2.0, eventually evolves.
I am completely with you on the intelligence of The Economist as well. I don't always agree with their opinions, but I find their articles so thoroughly researched and well articulated that they always make me think, and very often see the world and current events from a different perspective.
Posted by: Rob Burke | December 11, 2007 10:29 AMThis is great news. I have been reading Economist for years and what I like most about their articles is the "big picture" point of view. Rather than focusing on events taking place, they focus on reason, causes, analysis and where it may lead. All this is applicable to debate, so it seems that they have chosen a very nice path to social media.
I read most of the content online and I haven't had any issues as some commenter said.
Thanks for the well-written post.
Posted by: Emergent Future | December 11, 2007 12:26 PMThanks for a great post.
I was lucky to receive a "British Education" and one of the things we did was learn to debate the Oxford style. What I learned was the ability to see both sides of an argument and that made me get more familiar with any topic under discussion. I understand Peter's comment about the source of a quote or information being of significant importance to the reliability and bias of that information. With no bylines, we're forced to trust the publication rather than any one writer. Nevertheless, since more or less one managing editor ultimately decides what gets published aren't we at the mercy of the publication rather than one writer in any case?
Posted by: Small Business Marketing | December 11, 2007 10:45 PMI grew up reading the economist ( I am from what is called the British West Indies) but I fear I have succumbed to what passes for journalism in this country. Time to return to my roots.
Posted by: Khurt L.F.E Williams | December 14, 2007 11:31 AM