One of the phrases used in promotional material for the magazine is, "I used to think. Now I just read The Economist." To what extent does a publication, because of its stature, take on the role of setting public opinion, as opposed to just reporting the news?

Inevitably, publications do influence public opinion, so there is a responsibility to be rigorous, to do analysis in good faith, and to make sure that research has been done properly. It is something that one should take very seriously. One shouldn't exaggerate the degree of influence that publications have, though. There's a morass of competing media, information, ideas, and judgments--it would be implausible to say that any one publication is more clearly influential than all the others. In general, it's better to be humble about this; it would be a mistake to shape a magazine to seek influence. You are influential if your analysis is good and rigorous, if your judgments turn out to have resonance and to be well-founded, and if your readers are convinced by them. If you can satisfy 750,000 readers, then as a side effect you might end up being influential. Publications make a big mistake if they seek influence as an end in itself because they usually end up writing for a very limited audience. You should always direct your magazine at your readers and their interests and needs. In the case of The Economist, the cliche I use is that we're the "house magazine of globalization." What unites our readers is that they're all engaged in the globalization of finance, politics, or society. The way they relate to one another is the same way in which travelers in a business lounge in an airport relate to one another--they're all traveling around the world and they share concerns, but they're not all living in the same place.