The Economist Reviews 820

Unfortunately, the paper either arrives late on a Saturday or by Tuesday the following. What use is receiving a weekend paper the following week? dont bother.

It's such a shame how the subscription works. Such good content and podcasts but after this ordeal I will and have gone elsewhere. It should be much better. AVOID.

The Economist is one of the best magazines out there for its content on politics, business, lifestyle and technology. However as others have said, their cancellation process almost borders on scam because there is no option to cancel online and I had to end up chatting to an agent who pursued me to continue the subscription until I had to insist on cancellation.

Amazing magazine. Insightful articles and very well-researched. The only drawback is that is extremely, extremely expensive.

The central tenet of any business transaction is that you pay a business to provide a service and get refunded if the business is unable to provide the service. I paid for Print subscription since I like reading print magazines. Economist have been unable to deliver print copies. I reached out to their support multiple times and felt like I was in a Groundhog day movie!

Every single time they would say that they have escalated the matter to their delivery team and come next week I would not get the print copy. Since I did not get the print copies, I canceled the subscription. The shocking thing was The Economist refused to offer a refund since my cancellation was outside their initial 14 day period. I found this incredibly shady, since the fault was 100% theirs. They have no idea how to deliver physical magazines. I have no problems getting magazines and letters delivered to my address from other companies.

What The Economist is doing is downright fraudulent. It's not legal for a business to take money for a service and not provide the service. They need to either fix their physical delivery system or provide an option to cancel/offer refunds if they are unable to deliver print magazines.

The articles are good. But the service and delivery are just awful! I have not received print copies on-time for 3 months! I know, I'm old school - I like reading print versions. After contacting them via chat, they just sent a few OLD copies (like, who wants to read month-old news) for compensation.

I've tried getting them to correct this 3 times via chat with no luck - just really poor service and they didn't seem to care that I didn't want to pay for something they weren't sending me.

Beware paying these guys in advance. It's an expensive magazine - one would expect it to have much better service.

So disappointed.

What a scam! After listening to the first 3 free episodes of an Economist Podcast, we had to sign up for a subscription in order to get the remaining episodes. Trying to cancel the subscription after was a nightmare and took over an hour to do which included a phone call.
We now realized that, despite canceling, they’ve been charging us $9/month totalling $36! Ironically, the podcast was about Scam Inc.

I canceled the main subscription and got some runaround about keeping Espresso so that I could then cancel it. I know...it doesn't make any sense. After 45 minutes on the phone, I thought I finally resolved everything. Today, I had to call back yet again because I'm somehow being charged for Espresso, which I DID NOT WANT and TRIED TO CANCEL. This company reoccurs like a bad rash.

Paying upfront for The Economist has been a complete disaster. Most weeks my issue simply doesn’t arrive — I then have to chase them for a reprint that shows up two weeks late, if at all.

The low point? Eight straight weeks with NOTHING. No originals, no reprints. For this, their “solution” was a pitiful €20 compensation — insulting given the hundreds I’ve paid.

This isn’t an occasional glitch; it’s a systemic failure. Every week feels like a battle just to get what I paid for. The Economist’s brand suggests quality and reliability — the reality is incompetence and indifference.

I feel cheated, and I wouldn’t recommend this subscription to anyone unless you enjoy paying for a service you may never receive.

Useless Chat option as more interested in 'verifying subscription record' than answering my comment about yet another 10% cover price increase. My goodness they have my email address so what more is necessary? This type of response is becoming far too common in UK where companies are not interested in offering any justification for price. Probably want to push electronic and cease printing. Good luck with that.

I canceled my subscription for the economist espresso back in June but I'm still being charged. I e mailed the complaints e mail that you listed on here in response to other complaints on the 31st of July and have not received a response.

In response to your message below I already e mailed you on the complaints e-mail on the 31st of July but you have not responded!! I have taken the matter up with my credit card company.

The Economist has become too focused on promoting its opinions and too light on presenting the facts. When facts are presented, they are often distorted by opinion.

A glaring example of this is their recent leader "The climate needs a politics of the possible". In this leader they state:

"Seeing an ever-more-powerful China emitting more than Europe and America combined makes resentful Western voters seethe."

This is just stupid. Of course China emits more pollution because it has a bigger population. What is significant is how much pollution each person emits. So the reality is the opposite of what the author of the leader stated. The US emits 17.6 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per person, whereas China emits 9.4 metric tons. Add to that the fact that a lot of China's emissions and significant emissions from container shipping are caused by American demand for manufactured goods, and the conclusion is that the US is twice as polluting as China, the exact opposite of what the article said. This is very sloppy reporting.

We recently sponsored a webinar with Economist Impact at a very high price point of $70K and the experience was very disappointing, not only for us as the vendor but for the webinar attendees as well. The communication from their editorial team was disorganized. The webinar software platform used was not user friendly. The moderator was limiting organic conversation from executives at Vanguard, Walmart and more. 65% of lead information was not shared and follow ups from Economist Impact were delayed.

Great journalism, terrible subscription service. My discounted subscription got cancelled (partly my fault, to be fair), I wanted to re-activate it. Indranita and Jom confirmed explicitly the discounted rate but asked me to contact their UK/EMEA phone no. which did not work (at least from Germany). Then I was asked to contact them via chat where Samuel P just stopped the conversation abruptly without answering my question. Finally I received an email from Karthik confirming he "understands my concerns" and he cannot offer me anything. Summing up, I was sent running around in circles for 1 week, with completely contradictory feedback and a highly unprofessionally "service"

Critique of “I Spent 500 Days as a Hostage of Hamas” – The Economist

The Economist’s article “I Spent 500 Days as a Hostage of Hamas”, published in the 1843 Reportage section, presents a narrowly focused narrative that reveals a deeply concerning editorial bias. Rather than offering a balanced or contextualized view of the conflict, the piece reinforces a one-sided, dehumanizing portrayal that aligns with long-standing Western media tropes — notably, framing Israel as the perpetual victim and Palestinians, particularly Hamas, as inhuman aggressors.

Distortion by Omission

The article completely ignores the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza. Over 2 million civilians face acute shortages of food, water, and medical supplies — fundamental human rights systematically denied due to a years-long blockade and ongoing military operations. Thousands of homes have been destroyed, entire families wiped out, and civilian infrastructure obliterated. This is not collateral damage — it is mass suffering inflicted on a population with no safe haven.

Yet, in this article, The Economist chooses to highlight the suffering of one individual, without acknowledging — let alone questioning — the broader context of Israeli occupation, collective punishment, and daily violations of international law. There is no mention of why Hamas exists, what led to their attacks, or the desperation and trauma imposed on generations of Palestinians.

Reinforcing a Dangerous Narrative

By presenting Hamas as mere “beasts” who steal and torture, the article denies readers the chance to understand the motivations, history, and systemic injustices that drive the conflict. It does not distinguish between resistance and terrorism, between civilian and militant, or between fact and propaganda. This kind of narrative emboldens public opinion that justifies indiscriminate military retaliation against an entire population — not just fighters.

A Failure of Responsible Journalism

Elite publications like The Economist carry influence — and with that comes responsibility. The failure to present even a minimal degree of balance in this article is not just lazy journalism; it is complicity in a narrative that whitewashes war crimes and silences the suffering of a colonized and brutalized people. When global media serves only one side of the story, it contributes to the continuation of violence and injustice.

Conclusion

This article is not just biased — it is ethically troubling. In spotlighting the pain of one Israeli while ignoring the annihilation of thousands of Palestinians, The Economist undermines its own credibility and dignity as a journalistic institution. True reporting demands more than sensationalism — it demands truth, context, and humanity. This piece offers none.

The Economist has charged me for *two* subscriptions (each $300!!!), both of which are associated with the same billing address and phone number. Despite this fact, their non-US or UK-based "customer support" essentially told me, too bad, so sad. And when I asked to speak to a supervisor, I was given the standard line that "there's no supervisor available." What this is is "sludge," ie, a deliberate practice to frustrate consumers so they give up. I will not give up, however, and will use all legal means at my disposal to recover the funds. I've been a subscriber for 45 years, but their "customer service" doesn't care. Their loss; legacy media is dying anyway, and I'll never spend a penny on their rag.

us poorer folks, the voting public, cannot afford the cost to be excellently informed, given the cost of politico!
We are not all ignorant folks who can't begin to afford the adroit insights into world affaires as is solely provided.
Surely the availability of your publication 'to folks whose priority is survival', Counts?
One gotta be rich to ever afford adroit reporting of world affairs. Us 'others', the ill informed, the majorities across borders, who despise the atrocities, further suffer the unaffordability to subscribe.
Shame on you for your elitism. .. How pretentious to give a hell, or hail, to the real world .. us folks who'd never be able to afford the knowledge of world affaires to learn how we must strive to survive.

I've had late delivery almost every week this year despite contacting them at least 10 times to complain. I have now cancelled my subscription.
Great newspaper, appalling delivery service.

Customer Service is non-existent. I paid for a years subscription and received nothing. No amount of time with customer Service could resolve the issue.

Expresso subscription of $8.90 to read 3 articles?

Ripoff.
No tech support.

Sad since I wanted to pay them $9 a month to read their insights.