5 ms·

And it’s usually trying to push an agenda, to boot.

tchalla 5y ago
In this case, they are reporting on a specific research which was published 2d ago. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09500170211015067 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09500170211015...
- petra 5y ago
  Research can have biases too.
  - tchalla 5y ago
    Of course! Everything can have a bias - that's well understood. Just because something can have one, doesn't mean it does. If one finds bias in the research methods or data in the article - one can conduct their own study and submit their results. Ironically, the research from Cambridge talks about a bias in the original thesis of "BS jobs".
- world_peace42 5y ago
  Yes, I read the article. I'm confused; is this supposed to constitute a rebuttal?
mrweasel 5y ago
I don't think The Economist is trying to hide that. In fact they are pretty open about their opinions and what they support.
- world_peace42 5y ago
  Who do you believe "their" and "they" specify in regards to the opinions presented?
  - mrweasel 5y ago
    That would be the The Economist Group, and by extension it's owners. Had it been a stock company with thousands or millions stockholders it would be safer to assume that they most likely doesn't hold that much influence over the editorial content, but I believe The Economist Groups only have a handful stockholders. Ideally I'd say that "they" are the editors, but we don't know what level of influence the owners have, so "they" could be the Cadbury family.
    - world_peace42 5y ago
      Yes, I'm familiar. Based on the drivel that comes out of the Economist on a regular basis, I've long made the conclusion that "they" and whomever their close friends are/they vacation with are the "editors". I don't think it's a remarkable claim. I'm not expecting to see any WaPo articles criticizing Amazon anytime soon, either.
dredmorbius 5y ago
True. And the newspaper's quite refreshingly and frankly open about that fact: And now we beg to submit the following detail of the plans which we have thoroughly organised to carry into effect these objects of our ardent desires, in the following PROSPECTUS of a weekly paper, to be published every Saturday, and to be called THE ECONOMIST, which will contain— First.—ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day—political events—and parliamentary discussions; and particularly to all such as relate immediately to revenue, commerce, and agriculture; or otherwise affect the material interests of the country.... <https://www.economist.com/unknown/1843/08/05/prospectus https://www.economist.com/unknown/1843/08/05/prospectus> (I'm not claiming support or opposition of the viewpoint. Only that the Economist has a view and explicitly promotes it, quite openly.)
- world_peace42 5y ago
  That’s great, and I’m a sea otter because it is so written. Send me a link to the portfolio of everyone who has influence over what gets written and I’ll show you how they decide what to publish.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    I'm sorry, but are you agreeing with me that the Economist has a clearly articulated editorial bias or not? Because quite plainly, they do. And I would expect that to be exercised through editorial control and directives. If you think the Economist does NOT have an editorial bias, or a different editorial bias, what is your basis for claiming so, and in the latter case, what is that bias? You seem to be putting "disagree with dredmorbius" ahead of "express myself clearly". Try the latter.
    - world_peace42 5y ago
      I’m a bit speechless at this point. I’ve written about 5 posts so far stating that they have a bias, the actual one definitely not clearly articulated, including several you’ve responded to. No offense, I think what I’ve written is clear, but that you may be confused.

In this case, they are reporting on a specific research which was published 2d ago. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09500170211015067 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09500170211015...

petra 5y ago
Research can have biases too.
- tchalla 5y ago
  Of course! Everything can have a bias - that's well understood. Just because something can have one, doesn't mean it does. If one finds bias in the research methods or data in the article - one can conduct their own study and submit their results. Ironically, the research from Cambridge talks about a bias in the original thesis of "BS jobs".
world_peace42 5y ago
Yes, I read the article. I'm confused; is this supposed to constitute a rebuttal?

mrweasel 5y ago

I don't think The Economist is trying to hide that. In fact they are pretty open about their opinions and what they support.

world_peace42 5y ago
Who do you believe "their" and "they" specify in regards to the opinions presented?
- mrweasel 5y ago
  That would be the The Economist Group, and by extension it's owners. Had it been a stock company with thousands or millions stockholders it would be safer to assume that they most likely doesn't hold that much influence over the editorial content, but I believe The Economist Groups only have a handful stockholders. Ideally I'd say that "they" are the editors, but we don't know what level of influence the owners have, so "they" could be the Cadbury family.
  - world_peace42 5y ago
    Yes, I'm familiar. Based on the drivel that comes out of the Economist on a regular basis, I've long made the conclusion that "they" and whomever their close friends are/they vacation with are the "editors". I don't think it's a remarkable claim. I'm not expecting to see any WaPo articles criticizing Amazon anytime soon, either.

dredmorbius 5y ago

True. And the newspaper's quite refreshingly and frankly open about that fact: And now we beg to submit the following detail of the plans which we have thoroughly organised to carry into effect these objects of our ardent desires, in the following PROSPECTUS of a weekly paper, to be published every Saturday, and to be called THE ECONOMIST, which will contain— First.—ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day—political events—and parliamentary discussions; and particularly to all such as relate immediately to revenue, commerce, and agriculture; or otherwise affect the material interests of the country.... <https://www.economist.com/unknown/1843/08/05/prospectus https://www.economist.com/unknown/1843/08/05/prospectus> (I'm not claiming support or opposition of the viewpoint. Only that the Economist has a view and explicitly promotes it, quite openly.)

world_peace42 5y ago
That’s great, and I’m a sea otter because it is so written. Send me a link to the portfolio of everyone who has influence over what gets written and I’ll show you how they decide what to publish.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  I'm sorry, but are you agreeing with me that the Economist has a clearly articulated editorial bias or not? Because quite plainly, they do. And I would expect that to be exercised through editorial control and directives. If you think the Economist does NOT have an editorial bias, or a different editorial bias, what is your basis for claiming so, and in the latter case, what is that bias? You seem to be putting "disagree with dredmorbius" ahead of "express myself clearly". Try the latter.
  - world_peace42 5y ago
    I’m a bit speechless at this point. I’ve written about 5 posts so far stating that they have a bias, the actual one definitely not clearly articulated, including several you’ve responded to. No offense, I think what I’ve written is clear, but that you may be confused.