<story><title>For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes</title><url>http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21660919-only-second-time-our-history-ownership-economist-changes-new-chapter</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>plg</author><text>The Economist is a prime example of how for-pay curated content can work and can work well to serve a market... a wide market.&lt;p&gt;Can you imagine, just imagine, how craptastic The Economist would be if it were &amp;quot;free&amp;quot; and all you had to do was endure curated advertisements?&lt;p&gt;PS I would pay extra if they would stop stapling in those cardboard subscription cards in the middle of the (print) issue.&lt;p&gt;PPS I feel the same way about the NY Times---worth paying for---although they have gone so broad recently that I&amp;#x27;m worried they&amp;#x27;re becoming unfocused, trying to appeal to too many at once.</text></comment>
<story><title>For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes</title><url>http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21660919-only-second-time-our-history-ownership-economist-changes-new-chapter</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>rm999</author><text>&amp;gt; Pearson, the owner of the Financial Times, which has had a non-controlling 50% stake in us since 1928, is selling. Three-fifths of those shares will go to an existing shareholder—Exor, the holding company of the Agnelli family. The rest will be bought back by our parent company, The Economist Group.&lt;p&gt;Phew, I was really worried they were selling to News Corp or something when I saw the headline. I&amp;#x27;ve often thought of the Economist as the weekly version of FT, but the two are actually quite independent from each other (both in editorial control and legal control). Pearson had a 50% stake in the Economist but only 6&amp;#x2F;13 board seats. And the Economist has been great about fiercely guarding its editorial independence.</text></comment>