4 ms·
In a previous HN discussion, I believe it was the commentary on the changed ownership of The Economist - several commenters said that they think The Economist u
by ersii 11y ago
In a previous HN discussion, I believe it was the commentary on the changed ownership of The Economist - several commenters said that they think The Economist usually carries biased and badly nuanced pieces when it comes to territories outside of the West.
I'm not holding this against anyone, but as far as I can see, this piece is nuanced and well balanced. I can not find any particular bias towards any one entity. But if anyone does see any, please bring it forward, as I'm genuinely interested.
- leoc 11y agoOn a related matter, I don't think the subject and timing of this article is at all a coincidence.
- Turukawa 11y agoWell, of course not ;) It is: the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII, the once-a-decade formal apology by the Japanese PM for their actions during the war (a massively contentious issue where his every word is analysed by Japan's neighbours, and which wasn't felt to be sufficiently contrite this time), as well as falling within the usual politics of the region.
- leoc 11y agoI was thinking of the Economist's change of ownership.