5 ms·

> But confidently wrong is completely on brand for this magazine, so thumbs up for them I don't think that's fair. Yes, I disagree with this particular article

by sho 8y ago

> But confidently wrong is completely on brand for this magazine, so thumbs up for them I don't think that's fair. Yes, I disagree with this particular article, but The Economist makes more effort than most to offer non-partisan, fact-based and insightful analysis. And yes, they have a particular worldview, which they wear on their sleeve. In general I don't have many bad, and have a lot of good, things to say about them. If you have a better recommendation to fill their niche I'd be interested to hear it.

nimish 8y ago
> The Economist makes more effort than most to offer non-partisan, fact-based and insightful analysis The Economist is basically the Gell-Mann effect in written form. They are also definitely partisan when it suits them (they were formed to argue against the Corn Laws!)
- remarkEon 8y ago
  For the uninitiated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect The Economist is basically that happens when you stick your finger in the air and want to write down what the "consensus" opinion is. It's neither insightful, nor surprising. In a way, it is the most boring magazine there is.
  - FiveSquared 8y ago
    And news is supposed to be boring, if boring is true (which is most cases).
  - nindalf 8y ago
    Wow, what sort of person dismisses an opinion just for being the “consensus” and appreciates an opinion for being “surprising” rather than correct.
    - remarkEon 8y ago
      What sort of person assumes the “consensus” opinion is correct?
      - nindalf 8y ago
        Did I say it was? Could you point out where I did? I merely said that it it is wrong to _dismiss_ it for that reason. Whether it is the consensus or not has no bearing on how correct it is. The person I was replying to obviously felt differently.
  - jpatokal 8y ago
    The Economist has been consistent i advocating in for (among other things) legalizing drugs, same-sex marriage, more public transport, carbon trading, nuclear energy, less regulation, freer immigration and many other things that were not and are not the "consensus opinion".
    - agsdfgsd 8y ago
      Those have been the consensus opinion of the media the entire time the economist has been promoting them. The media exists to convey a false sense of consensus in order to cause people to go with the imaginary herd.
    - remarkEon 8y ago
      What? Advocating these things is the very definition of the neoliberal consensus view - for which this magazine explicitly advocates. With the exception of same-sex marriage (maybe ... this was a liberal policy goal for a long time), all of that is the boilerplate position of any pol from that camp.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I find they do a pretty sound job on topics I know, even when I happen to disagree with them. Gell-Mann applies less frequently there than much of the rest of the media. "partisan when it suits them" They spell out their worldview, far more plainly and thoroughly than most, and explicitly non-partisan on their about us page. So is their ownership. They're consistent enough that I generally know on what topics we will differ. They've never supported a particular party but come election time and big issues they endorse one way or the other, with reasoning. Beats the single party (whichever party) come what may stance of most titles. What more could you want? Like the FT, I find them far less partisan than younger-me once expected.
- nindalf 8y ago
  You might have misunderstood what the Gell-Mann effect is. 1. you find an article published on a topic that you know well. 2. You find that the publication is egregiously wrong about it. 3. You laugh about it, turn the page and believe everything they write about other topics. I know technology reasonably well, and I’ve noticed every single publication I’ve read, the NYT onwards, make mistakes. In 12 years of reading the Economist (especially their fantastically informative Technology Quarterly issues) I have yet to notice them making mistakes. For this, and other reasons, I trust them. The way you’ve phrased your comment “... in written form” makes me think you don’t know what you’re talking about. But who knows, I could probably read another comment by you and think “wow that’s insightful”.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

by sho 8y ago

nimish 8y ago

> The Economist makes more effort than most to offer non-partisan, fact-based and insightful analysis The Economist is basically the Gell-Mann effect in written form. They are also definitely partisan when it suits them (they were formed to argue against the Corn Laws!)

remarkEon 8y ago
For the uninitiated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect The Economist is basically that happens when you stick your finger in the air and want to write down what the "consensus" opinion is. It's neither insightful, nor surprising. In a way, it is the most boring magazine there is.
- FiveSquared 8y ago
  And news is supposed to be boring, if boring is true (which is most cases).
- nindalf 8y ago
  Wow, what sort of person dismisses an opinion just for being the “consensus” and appreciates an opinion for being “surprising” rather than correct.
  - remarkEon 8y ago
    What sort of person assumes the “consensus” opinion is correct?
    - nindalf 8y ago
      Did I say it was? Could you point out where I did? I merely said that it it is wrong to _dismiss_ it for that reason. Whether it is the consensus or not has no bearing on how correct it is. The person I was replying to obviously felt differently.
- jpatokal 8y ago
  The Economist has been consistent i advocating in for (among other things) legalizing drugs, same-sex marriage, more public transport, carbon trading, nuclear energy, less regulation, freer immigration and many other things that were not and are not the "consensus opinion".
  - agsdfgsd 8y ago
    Those have been the consensus opinion of the media the entire time the economist has been promoting them. The media exists to convey a false sense of consensus in order to cause people to go with the imaginary herd.
  - remarkEon 8y ago
    What? Advocating these things is the very definition of the neoliberal consensus view - for which this magazine explicitly advocates. With the exception of same-sex marriage (maybe ... this was a liberal policy goal for a long time), all of that is the boilerplate position of any pol from that camp.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I find they do a pretty sound job on topics I know, even when I happen to disagree with them. Gell-Mann applies less frequently there than much of the rest of the media. "partisan when it suits them" They spell out their worldview, far more plainly and thoroughly than most, and explicitly non-partisan on their about us page. So is their ownership. They're consistent enough that I generally know on what topics we will differ. They've never supported a particular party but come election time and big issues they endorse one way or the other, with reasoning. Beats the single party (whichever party) come what may stance of most titles. What more could you want? Like the FT, I find them far less partisan than younger-me once expected.
nindalf 8y ago
You might have misunderstood what the Gell-Mann effect is. 1. you find an article published on a topic that you know well. 2. You find that the publication is egregiously wrong about it. 3. You laugh about it, turn the page and believe everything they write about other topics. I know technology reasonably well, and I’ve noticed every single publication I’ve read, the NYT onwards, make mistakes. In 12 years of reading the Economist (especially their fantastically informative Technology Quarterly issues) I have yet to notice them making mistakes. For this, and other reasons, I trust them. The way you’ve phrased your comment “... in written form” makes me think you don’t know what you’re talking about. But who knows, I could probably read another comment by you and think “wow that’s insightful”.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]