4 ms·

The Economist itself has a left wing bias.

ptah 7y ago
citation needed
cromwellian 7y ago
Funny, a lot of left wingers would say Economist has a neo-liberal (right wing) bias. It seems the Overton window has shifted the right so far to the extreme that someone like Milton Friedman would probably be considered left wing.
- luckylion 7y ago
  Doubtful. It's just that the left-right-axis isn't that helpful these days. You can be socially progressive but financially conservative.
  - debacle 7y ago
    Very true. Left no longer means liberal.
    - dagw 7y ago
      Outside of the US, "liberal" politicians and political parties almost always belong to the center right part of the countries political spectrum.
- ptah 7y ago
  yes, this is evident from claims that hillary clinton is a leftist when she is closer to maggie thatcher
  - rbanffy 7y ago
    Or that Bernie Sanders is a socialist...
- baud147258 7y ago
  Perhaps they have different bias, depending on the subject? (I don't know, I haven't opened one since leaving school)
  - dagw 7y ago
    I think they'd argue that they have a consistently liberal "bias" in all subjects, it's just they don't map cleanly onto modern left-right politics. For example they favor deregulation and privatization which are traditional "right wing" stances, while also favoring gay marriage and drug legalization which is an issues that has recently been more championed by the left. The Economist would argue that their stance in both issues is "liberal" thus there being no contradiction.
    - baud147258 7y ago
      Thank you. From the two comments above, I guessed it was something like this
- repolfx 7y ago
  They used to. Since Zanny Minton-Beddoes took over it's basically the British version of the NYT but in magazine form.
nabla9 7y ago
The Economist's editorial stance is classical and economic liberalism. https://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_Economistcom https://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_Economistcom >What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage.

ptah 7y ago

citation needed

Funny, a lot of left wingers would say Economist has a neo-liberal (right wing) bias. It seems the Overton window has shifted the right so far to the extreme that someone like Milton Friedman would probably be considered left wing.

luckylion 7y ago
Doubtful. It's just that the left-right-axis isn't that helpful these days. You can be socially progressive but financially conservative.
- debacle 7y ago
  Very true. Left no longer means liberal.
  - dagw 7y ago
    Outside of the US, "liberal" politicians and political parties almost always belong to the center right part of the countries political spectrum.
ptah 7y ago
yes, this is evident from claims that hillary clinton is a leftist when she is closer to maggie thatcher
- rbanffy 7y ago
  Or that Bernie Sanders is a socialist...
baud147258 7y ago
Perhaps they have different bias, depending on the subject? (I don't know, I haven't opened one since leaving school)
- dagw 7y ago
  I think they'd argue that they have a consistently liberal "bias" in all subjects, it's just they don't map cleanly onto modern left-right politics. For example they favor deregulation and privatization which are traditional "right wing" stances, while also favoring gay marriage and drug legalization which is an issues that has recently been more championed by the left. The Economist would argue that their stance in both issues is "liberal" thus there being no contradiction.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    Thank you. From the two comments above, I guessed it was something like this
repolfx 7y ago
They used to. Since Zanny Minton-Beddoes took over it's basically the British version of the NYT but in magazine form.

nabla9 7y ago

The Economist's editorial stance is classical and economic liberalism. https://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_Economistcom https://www.economist.com/help/about-us#About_Economistcom >What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage.