4 ms·

The Economist’s willingness to fess up to their mistakes makes me trust them. For years, even up till 2017 every mention of the Iraq war would include the cavea

The Economist’s willingness to fess up to their mistakes makes me trust them. For years, even up till 2017 every mention of the Iraq war would include the caveat “(which this newspaper supported)”. They didn’t need to, especially since other publications don’t do the same. It shows a level of integrity and self-awareness that appears generally lacking.

baragiola 8y ago
Exactly, they are by far the less biased news outlet I read. For instance, they explicitly don't support Trump, but don't hesitate to say "Trump is right about X", or "Trump did well on Y". They also don't support the Chinese PC, but don't hesitate on giving recommendations that would help them fix their problems (knowing that the Chinese elite read The Economist)
- js2 8y ago
  Saying they aren’t biased doesn’t mean they don’t have a viewpoint, which they themselves disclose: “We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our public agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We have supported free trade ever since our foundation in 1843 when we opposed Britain’s corn laws, which sought to keep the price of grain high by limiting imports. We have continued to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, such as same-sex marriage and legalisation of drugs, regardless of whether they are politically popular, in the belief that the force of argument will eventually prevail.” https://www.economist.com/about-the-economist#editorial-philosophy https://www.economist.com/about-the-economist#editorial-phil... I know people who would call that biased. Disclosure: I’m a subscriber.
  - nxc18 8y ago
    Thanks for raising this. I listen to the economist (big fan of their podcasts) as well as occasionally reading. I remember being somewhat shocked to discover that not only do they have a strong bias towards liberalism, but they aren't afraid to talk about it. They absolutely are biased, but they tell you how and why right up front which is rather refreshing.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > For instance, they explicitly don't support Trump, but don't hesitate to say "Trump is right about X", or "Trump did well on Y". Being willing to praise someone you oppose in general when they align with your bias isn't the same as not having bias.
harryf 8y ago
For me their support for the Iraq war was where we parted ways permanently. Anyone with half a brain could see what was going on in the build up to Iraq. The Economist was for _intelligent_ analysis. They could have chosen to be honest “The Iraq war is a fantastic opportunity to plunder the wealth of a nation, therefor as Economists we support it”. Instead they got onboard with selling a war based on false premises. The minimum would have been simply “we are choosing not to cover the Iraq war as we feel it puts us in a position of being intellectually dishonest”. Or they could have taken a bolder stance and questioned things like what it means to declare war on a noun (war on terror) instead of a nation. Ultimately, considering the number of people that died due to the Iraq war and the ensuing chaos, simply putting “(which this newspaper supported)” in brackets seems like a lame response to me. Instead how about retroactively analyzing what really happened, what mistakes the Economist made and why, and publishing that outside of the paywall?
- Kalium 8y ago
  If they took the course of action you call for, would you begin subscribing again?
- meowface 8y ago
  >They could have chosen to be honest “The Iraq war is a fantastic opportunity to plunder the wealth of a nation, therefor as Economists we support it”. Instead they got onboard with selling a war based on false premises. You're suggesting they knew the premises were false at the time. They very likely did not know that at the time; nor did any of the major media outlets. Yes, they all, including the Economist, could've given the war much more scrutiny and skepticism from the start, but that's why they're admitting they messed up every time they mention the Iraq war. You also have to consider the politics and atmosphere at the time: most people in the country (regular citizens, politicians, newspapers, everyone) supported the war and truly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We all already knew he was a brutal despot who had no issue using terrorism and WMDs against civilians in the past to achieve his goals, so it's not like his having WMDs in 2003 would've been the most shocking revelation in the world. It just happened to be untrue. This is a massive collective mistake, not just something the media screwed up. The media certainly played a big part, and the media definitely needs to be held to higher standards than regular citizens do, but the blame can't be placed solely on their shoulders. >Instead how about retroactively analyzing what really happened, what mistakes the Economist made and why, and publishing that outside of the paywall? I agree that's a great idea. I think they should do both (a full retrospective + disclosing they supported the war when they mention it in the future). They could even hyperlink "(which this newspaper supported)" to point to the analysis.

baragiola 8y ago

Exactly, they are by far the less biased news outlet I read. For instance, they explicitly don't support Trump, but don't hesitate to say "Trump is right about X", or "Trump did well on Y". They also don't support the Chinese PC, but don't hesitate on giving recommendations that would help them fix their problems (knowing that the Chinese elite read The Economist)

js2 8y ago
Saying they aren’t biased doesn’t mean they don’t have a viewpoint, which they themselves disclose: “We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our public agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We have supported free trade ever since our foundation in 1843 when we opposed Britain’s corn laws, which sought to keep the price of grain high by limiting imports. We have continued to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, such as same-sex marriage and legalisation of drugs, regardless of whether they are politically popular, in the belief that the force of argument will eventually prevail.” https://www.economist.com/about-the-economist#editorial-philosophy https://www.economist.com/about-the-economist#editorial-phil... I know people who would call that biased. Disclosure: I’m a subscriber.
- nxc18 8y ago
  Thanks for raising this. I listen to the economist (big fan of their podcasts) as well as occasionally reading. I remember being somewhat shocked to discover that not only do they have a strong bias towards liberalism, but they aren't afraid to talk about it. They absolutely are biased, but they tell you how and why right up front which is rather refreshing.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> For instance, they explicitly don't support Trump, but don't hesitate to say "Trump is right about X", or "Trump did well on Y". Being willing to praise someone you oppose in general when they align with your bias isn't the same as not having bias.

harryf 8y ago

For me their support for the Iraq war was where we parted ways permanently. Anyone with half a brain could see what was going on in the build up to Iraq. The Economist was for _intelligent_ analysis. They could have chosen to be honest “The Iraq war is a fantastic opportunity to plunder the wealth of a nation, therefor as Economists we support it”. Instead they got onboard with selling a war based on false premises. The minimum would have been simply “we are choosing not to cover the Iraq war as we feel it puts us in a position of being intellectually dishonest”. Or they could have taken a bolder stance and questioned things like what it means to declare war on a noun (war on terror) instead of a nation. Ultimately, considering the number of people that died due to the Iraq war and the ensuing chaos, simply putting “(which this newspaper supported)” in brackets seems like a lame response to me. Instead how about retroactively analyzing what really happened, what mistakes the Economist made and why, and publishing that outside of the paywall?

Kalium 8y ago
If they took the course of action you call for, would you begin subscribing again?
meowface 8y ago
>They could have chosen to be honest “The Iraq war is a fantastic opportunity to plunder the wealth of a nation, therefor as Economists we support it”. Instead they got onboard with selling a war based on false premises. You're suggesting they knew the premises were false at the time. They very likely did not know that at the time; nor did any of the major media outlets. Yes, they all, including the Economist, could've given the war much more scrutiny and skepticism from the start, but that's why they're admitting they messed up every time they mention the Iraq war. You also have to consider the politics and atmosphere at the time: most people in the country (regular citizens, politicians, newspapers, everyone) supported the war and truly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We all already knew he was a brutal despot who had no issue using terrorism and WMDs against civilians in the past to achieve his goals, so it's not like his having WMDs in 2003 would've been the most shocking revelation in the world. It just happened to be untrue. This is a massive collective mistake, not just something the media screwed up. The media certainly played a big part, and the media definitely needs to be held to higher standards than regular citizens do, but the blame can't be placed solely on their shoulders. >Instead how about retroactively analyzing what really happened, what mistakes the Economist made and why, and publishing that outside of the paywall? I agree that's a great idea. I think they should do both (a full retrospective + disclosing they supported the war when they mention it in the future). They could even hyperlink "(which this newspaper supported)" to point to the analysis.