> The Economist is not doing mathematics or controlled, replicated experiments. Any given reader can't meaningfully check the work of a news organization for it

> The Economist is not doing mathematics or controlled, replicated experiments. Any given reader can't meaningfully check the work of a news organization for its relationship to the truth, except to see whether it aligns with what you already think. If that were true, it'd be one more reason not to try to give credence to unfalsifiable publications by linking them to experts of various fields, or even editors-who-once-took-a-course-on-T. But I think it's not true at all. The thought process on most publications like Economist is one most people can follow for its validity, precisely because it's not state-of-the-art mathematics (or even economics). Even though the domain experts can immediately judge its correctness, I think it's important for anyone to be able to at least identify when they're reading something they can't verify as correct, and not take publication X's "word" for it. > Editors are a thing. Editors are there to make sure the news piece conforms to certain standards, but that's not the standards of the readers. > If you already know whether or not the Economist is correct about something, what value are you getting from reading it? That was nowhere near my point, and I don't see why you base your comment around it. My point is I am (or want to be) able to read a piece and judge it on its own, rather than who wrote it.