5 ms·

I love the Economist, but they're not "non-partisan". They're simply upfront about their bias.

nxc18 6y ago
I think that’s the point, though. They have a biased worldview - they own that and highlight it regularly - but that bias doesn’t align with any American political party, and I don’t get the sense that it is particularly well aligned with existing parties in the UK either.
- selectodude 6y ago
  They're Lib-Dems.
  - twic 6y ago
    But only by exclusion. The Economist speaks from a classical/neo liberal viewpoint. Civil liberties, free markets, laissez faire, technocracy. Labour is too statist for them, and the Conservatives are currently too populist (and incompetent). The Economist's position lines up pretty well with the Orange Book wing of the Lib-Dems [1], but much less well with the SDP / social liberal wing. They have backed all three major parties in general elections in the last twenty years [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Book:_Reclaiming_Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Book:_Reclaiming_Li... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#British_general_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance...
dragonwriter 6y ago
“Non-partisan” is not the same thing as non-ideological.
- mrwh 6y ago
  This is a good point. Where the Economist is aligned with, say, the Tories, it's because they both support the same ideas, not because my-party-is-right. (Nowadays the Tories have shifted pretty damn far from those ideas, so it's more apparent that it's ideology that the Economist has, not a partisan affiliation.)
ptsneves 6y ago
Indeed. I think from the American point of view they seem to be so centered that it can fall both ways. For the UK i see them clearly as hardcore liberal democrats. I think that in the south Europe political landscape they would be orphaned as there even the center parties are not very economically liberal.
loughnane 6y ago
I think you can be biased but also non-partisan. Partisan is usually referred to in terms of being an the side of a particular party. The Economist definitely has its bias, but that doesn't align clearly with either the right or the left in American politics.
- clairity 6y ago
  democrat, republican and green are parties, not right and left, which represent an arbitrary dichotomization of a complex landscape otherwise irreducible without losing critical information. that kind of reductionism, i daresay, never leads to meaningful understanding, just loggerheads. the economist takes a conventional stance of promoting policies that favor the already wealthy. that facet of it is rather banal and certainly not where the exciting ideas for the next millennia are going to emerge from.
  - loughnane 6y ago
    It’s good point: right and left aren’t parties. Unfortunately it’s increasingly feeling that way in America; Independents (among which I count myself) don’t play a meaningful role and polarization as measured by congressional voting patterns seems to be the highest it’s been in decades. I think it’s unfair to say they support policies that favor the already wealthy. Certainly they do sometimes, but they’ve opposed tax cuts, supported minimum wage increases, etc. I’m ready to be proven wrong but I haven’t got that impression when I read it.
    - clairity 6y ago
      > "I think it’s unfair to say they support policies that favor the already wealthy." it's not unfair to call a spade a spade. opposing tax cuts can be done for a myriad of supportive or unsupportive reasons, so that doesn't provide a useful counter-argument. and "minimum wage increases" sounds great on the surface. but the underlying purpose of a minimum wage is to paper over gross systemic equities that have only grown over time and keep us from even discussing policies for creating more fair and dynamic markets that would naturally distribute wealth more widely and efficiently, and neatly obviate such a distortion-producing bandaid of a policy. but the central point is that no significant party and nearly no politician is addressing systemic issues that has promoted winner-take-all dynamics in our politicoeconomy for at least the last 50 years. even obamacare was so browbeaten and laden with special interest provisions, our healthcare costs have only soared, all to append zeroes onto bank accounts that abosolutely don't need, and more pointedly don't deserve, them.
danaliv 6y ago
Around these parts, you have to be yelling and calling people names to be considered "partisan." Subtlety is lost on us. (Not /s, but also not not /s?)
anthuswilliams 6y ago
It's more than just being upfront about their bias. It's also the way they avoid descending into demonizing and name-calling. Even when discussing leaders of whom they clearly disapprove such as Recep Erdogan, Jair Bolsonaro, and Donald Trump, they don't come right out and declare them as "lunatics". Instead, they try to write dispassionate analysis which often drives readers to the conclusion that they are lunatics. This might seem a subtle distinction, but it is a marked departure from the shrill tone of many other media outfits.

I think that’s the point, though. They have a biased worldview - they own that and highlight it regularly - but that bias doesn’t align with any American political party, and I don’t get the sense that it is particularly well aligned with existing parties in the UK either.

selectodude 6y ago
They're Lib-Dems.
- twic 6y ago
  But only by exclusion. The Economist speaks from a classical/neo liberal viewpoint. Civil liberties, free markets, laissez faire, technocracy. Labour is too statist for them, and the Conservatives are currently too populist (and incompetent). The Economist's position lines up pretty well with the Orange Book wing of the Lib-Dems [1], but much less well with the SDP / social liberal wing. They have backed all three major parties in general elections in the last twenty years [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Book:_Reclaiming_Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Book:_Reclaiming_Li... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#British_general_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance...

dragonwriter 6y ago

“Non-partisan” is not the same thing as non-ideological.

mrwh 6y ago
This is a good point. Where the Economist is aligned with, say, the Tories, it's because they both support the same ideas, not because my-party-is-right. (Nowadays the Tories have shifted pretty damn far from those ideas, so it's more apparent that it's ideology that the Economist has, not a partisan affiliation.)

ptsneves 6y ago

Indeed. I think from the American point of view they seem to be so centered that it can fall both ways. For the UK i see them clearly as hardcore liberal democrats. I think that in the south Europe political landscape they would be orphaned as there even the center parties are not very economically liberal.

loughnane 6y ago

I think you can be biased but also non-partisan. Partisan is usually referred to in terms of being an the side of a particular party. The Economist definitely has its bias, but that doesn't align clearly with either the right or the left in American politics.

clairity 6y ago
democrat, republican and green are parties, not right and left, which represent an arbitrary dichotomization of a complex landscape otherwise irreducible without losing critical information. that kind of reductionism, i daresay, never leads to meaningful understanding, just loggerheads. the economist takes a conventional stance of promoting policies that favor the already wealthy. that facet of it is rather banal and certainly not where the exciting ideas for the next millennia are going to emerge from.
- loughnane 6y ago
  It’s good point: right and left aren’t parties. Unfortunately it’s increasingly feeling that way in America; Independents (among which I count myself) don’t play a meaningful role and polarization as measured by congressional voting patterns seems to be the highest it’s been in decades. I think it’s unfair to say they support policies that favor the already wealthy. Certainly they do sometimes, but they’ve opposed tax cuts, supported minimum wage increases, etc. I’m ready to be proven wrong but I haven’t got that impression when I read it.
  - clairity 6y ago
    > "I think it’s unfair to say they support policies that favor the already wealthy." it's not unfair to call a spade a spade. opposing tax cuts can be done for a myriad of supportive or unsupportive reasons, so that doesn't provide a useful counter-argument. and "minimum wage increases" sounds great on the surface. but the underlying purpose of a minimum wage is to paper over gross systemic equities that have only grown over time and keep us from even discussing policies for creating more fair and dynamic markets that would naturally distribute wealth more widely and efficiently, and neatly obviate such a distortion-producing bandaid of a policy. but the central point is that no significant party and nearly no politician is addressing systemic issues that has promoted winner-take-all dynamics in our politicoeconomy for at least the last 50 years. even obamacare was so browbeaten and laden with special interest provisions, our healthcare costs have only soared, all to append zeroes onto bank accounts that abosolutely don't need, and more pointedly don't deserve, them.

danaliv 6y ago

Around these parts, you have to be yelling and calling people names to be considered "partisan." Subtlety is lost on us. (Not /s, but also not not /s?)

anthuswilliams 6y ago

It's more than just being upfront about their bias. It's also the way they avoid descending into demonizing and name-calling. Even when discussing leaders of whom they clearly disapprove such as Recep Erdogan, Jair Bolsonaro, and Donald Trump, they don't come right out and declare them as "lunatics". Instead, they try to write dispassionate analysis which often drives readers to the conclusion that they are lunatics. This might seem a subtle distinction, but it is a marked departure from the shrill tone of many other media outfits.