It could be that the news industry is getting split in two. On the one hand, there is up-to-date breaking news where all that matters is how fast you can get it out. Prose, spelling, sometimes even accuracy can be sacrificed to get it out faster. On the other hand, there's in-depth news and commentary like the Economist does. These are things that can be a week late, they can take their time, they can make something truly good because people don't read it to be informed about the latest thing, but to get really informed about the important stuff.
Where this leaves many papers is unknown. In the age before 24-hour cable news and the internet, the New York Times could be both good and in-depth and fast. However, the NYTimes will always be behind what I can get from any number of other sources today. They still have good analysis many times, but it isn't the Economist and it isn't the speed of internet news.
Eh, maybe I'm completely off base, but that's why I too still read the Economist while not being big on papers.
Where this leaves many papers is unknown. In the age before 24-hour cable news and the internet, the New York Times could be both good and in-depth and fast. However, the NYTimes will always be behind what I can get from any number of other sources today. They still have good analysis many times, but it isn't the Economist and it isn't the speed of internet news.
Eh, maybe I'm completely off base, but that's why I too still read the Economist while not being big on papers.