4 ms·

The Economist is one of the least biased sources of news, that routinely publishes letters, opeds and articles contradicting the sated editorial agenda. Very fe

The Economist is one of the least biased sources of news, that routinely publishes letters, opeds and articles contradicting the sated editorial agenda. Very few other news sources actually do that. They're not perfect, but it sure beats NYT. If you want the optimal news coverage without needing to read a million sources - The Economist, Financial Times, WSJ and The Guardian.

sudosysgen 5y ago
As I said, they show both sides, but they choose which two. They are not as forthcoming with their biases as it seems. They mainly set up their ideological oppositions as conservatives, but they in fact have a lot in common with them. This is especially true for foreign relations. I'd be happy to see examples of articles that go against the Economists' editorial agenda in profound ways and that pertain to foreign policy. If you want news coverage that is any good at all and you care about foreign affairs you absolutely have to include at least one and preferably two non-anglophone or non-western sources that preferably oppose each other. A good barometer I have for journals as far as foreign policy is their coverage of the Iraq War before it began. As far as I can see the Economist published almost nothing opposing it, limiting themselves to surface-level reporting of anti-war arguments in the sole goal of defeating them. I don't understand why you would limit yourself, if you had to choose 4 sources, to 4 centrist anglophone sources. It seems like a very biased media diet.
- crazygringo 5y ago
  If you only read the English language then you're kind of mostly limited to "anglophone", no? And how can 4 "centrist" sources be "very biased"? Isn't it literally the opposite?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > And how can 4 "centrist" sources be "very biased"? Isn't it literally the opposite? No, centrism isn’t the opposite of bias. Centrism is a position toward which there can bias of any strength. Position of bias on a left/right (or any other ideological) axis and strength of bias or two orthogonal, continuous dimensions.
    - crazygringo 5y ago
      In theory, perhaps. But in practice "centrist" news sources are far more likely to present multiple points of view -- e.g. a left and right one -- while "left" and "right" news sources generally do not. But at a deeper level, centrism isn't really an ideology at all, in the way the left and right can be. You can be a hard-core leftist or you can be a hard-core conservative, but the idea of a "hard-core centrist" doesn't really exist. So I'd argue centrism can be the opposite of bias in a very real way. It's about dropping bias towards ideologies, and treating issues in a practical balanced way.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > But in practice "centrist" news sources are far more likely to present multiple points of view No, in practice less strongly biased sources are more likely to present multiple points of view. Now, the same amount of variation can seem more diverse when you tend to bucket things into “left/right” binary categories, if the center of variation is near the point where you draw the line between buckets. But that's an artifact of forcing things into binary buckets making a centrist outlet providing center-left to center-right views look more diverse than a right-wing publication providing center-right to far-right views.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Centrism is a political position just the same as any other, and is just as biased. Most major news sources in the world report in English too. So you can indeed read news from sources that aren't from culturally similar anglophone countries and instead are from anywhere in the world.
- JAlexoid 5y ago
  > This is especially true for foreign relations. Their latest issue literally has a massive article against vaccine nationalism. Their opposition to breaking of the Iranian deal. > A good barometer I have for journals as far as foreign policy is their coverage of the Iraq War before it began That's very arbitrary, considering that 18 years have passed. The Economist has changed hands and most of its staff. > 4 centrist anglophone sources 4 sources that aren't radical, have clear motivation behind them. Money makes people write in a particular way, that is easy to gauge. Also - why would I read insane crap on either side, my job isn't to read news all day.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    The Economist has not changed its bias in over a hundred and fifty years, staying firmly focused on economic liberalism. Eighteen years is nothing. >4 sources that aren't radical, have clear motivation behind them. Money makes people write in a particular way, that is easy to gauge. I don't understand what you're saying here. Just because they have a bias that is for the status quo doesn't mean they are more or less right. As far as I'm concerned all I'm getting from this is "I agree with this ideological bias and I don't want to read anything else" Anyways, it's your decision to subscribe to a biased news diet. You're not any better because of which bias you choose than someone who only reads Newsmax or CNN. If your assessment is that anything that's not from the same ideology as these four sources is "insane crap", which it isn't, good points are being made by people of all political persuasions, then it's clear that you have created your own media echo chamber.
  - hermitdev 5y ago
    > That's very arbitrary, considering that 18 years have passed. Also, not specific enough. Which Iraq war? The one in 2000's? 90s? 80s?
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      The one in the 2000s, obviously.
whimsicalism 5y ago
I read both the NYT and the Economist, they are quite different publications so not really comparable in my view. That said, the editorial stance of the Economist comes through extremely clearly in their writings and they are unabashedly economically liberal. Your characterization of NYT as being less ideologically diverse really doesn't match my experience. Your list is incredibly West focused and honestly not that ideologically diverse, with the Guardian I guess supposed to take the "left" position.
- JAlexoid 5y ago
  > NYT as being less ideologically diverse NYT has lost my subscription, after they just straight up started running exaggerated stories. > Your list is incredibly West focused I read in 4 languages, would you like some news sources in Russian, Lithuanian or Italian?
tomkat0789 5y ago
+1. I sometimes regret subscribing to Financial Times, but their bias is pretty easy to identify and accept/reject once you understand it. I counterbalance it with Jacobian (far-left/communist - choose your adjective - news). There's an adage in math modeling/statistics: all models are wrong, but some are useful. Here, all newspapers are biased, but some are useful.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Jacobin, not Jacobian :) Unless there is some link between calculus and socialism that I have yet to discover

sudosysgen 5y ago

As I said, they show both sides, but they choose which two. They are not as forthcoming with their biases as it seems. They mainly set up their ideological oppositions as conservatives, but they in fact have a lot in common with them. This is especially true for foreign relations. I'd be happy to see examples of articles that go against the Economists' editorial agenda in profound ways and that pertain to foreign policy. If you want news coverage that is any good at all and you care about foreign affairs you absolutely have to include at least one and preferably two non-anglophone or non-western sources that preferably oppose each other. A good barometer I have for journals as far as foreign policy is their coverage of the Iraq War before it began. As far as I can see the Economist published almost nothing opposing it, limiting themselves to surface-level reporting of anti-war arguments in the sole goal of defeating them. I don't understand why you would limit yourself, if you had to choose 4 sources, to 4 centrist anglophone sources. It seems like a very biased media diet.

crazygringo 5y ago
If you only read the English language then you're kind of mostly limited to "anglophone", no? And how can 4 "centrist" sources be "very biased"? Isn't it literally the opposite?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > And how can 4 "centrist" sources be "very biased"? Isn't it literally the opposite? No, centrism isn’t the opposite of bias. Centrism is a position toward which there can bias of any strength. Position of bias on a left/right (or any other ideological) axis and strength of bias or two orthogonal, continuous dimensions.
  - crazygringo 5y ago
    In theory, perhaps. But in practice "centrist" news sources are far more likely to present multiple points of view -- e.g. a left and right one -- while "left" and "right" news sources generally do not. But at a deeper level, centrism isn't really an ideology at all, in the way the left and right can be. You can be a hard-core leftist or you can be a hard-core conservative, but the idea of a "hard-core centrist" doesn't really exist. So I'd argue centrism can be the opposite of bias in a very real way. It's about dropping bias towards ideologies, and treating issues in a practical balanced way.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > But in practice "centrist" news sources are far more likely to present multiple points of view No, in practice less strongly biased sources are more likely to present multiple points of view. Now, the same amount of variation can seem more diverse when you tend to bucket things into “left/right” binary categories, if the center of variation is near the point where you draw the line between buckets. But that's an artifact of forcing things into binary buckets making a centrist outlet providing center-left to center-right views look more diverse than a right-wing publication providing center-right to far-right views.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Centrism is a political position just the same as any other, and is just as biased. Most major news sources in the world report in English too. So you can indeed read news from sources that aren't from culturally similar anglophone countries and instead are from anywhere in the world.
JAlexoid 5y ago
> This is especially true for foreign relations. Their latest issue literally has a massive article against vaccine nationalism. Their opposition to breaking of the Iranian deal. > A good barometer I have for journals as far as foreign policy is their coverage of the Iraq War before it began That's very arbitrary, considering that 18 years have passed. The Economist has changed hands and most of its staff. > 4 centrist anglophone sources 4 sources that aren't radical, have clear motivation behind them. Money makes people write in a particular way, that is easy to gauge. Also - why would I read insane crap on either side, my job isn't to read news all day.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The Economist has not changed its bias in over a hundred and fifty years, staying firmly focused on economic liberalism. Eighteen years is nothing. >4 sources that aren't radical, have clear motivation behind them. Money makes people write in a particular way, that is easy to gauge. I don't understand what you're saying here. Just because they have a bias that is for the status quo doesn't mean they are more or less right. As far as I'm concerned all I'm getting from this is "I agree with this ideological bias and I don't want to read anything else" Anyways, it's your decision to subscribe to a biased news diet. You're not any better because of which bias you choose than someone who only reads Newsmax or CNN. If your assessment is that anything that's not from the same ideology as these four sources is "insane crap", which it isn't, good points are being made by people of all political persuasions, then it's clear that you have created your own media echo chamber.
- hermitdev 5y ago
  > That's very arbitrary, considering that 18 years have passed. Also, not specific enough. Which Iraq war? The one in 2000's? 90s? 80s?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    The one in the 2000s, obviously.

whimsicalism 5y ago

I read both the NYT and the Economist, they are quite different publications so not really comparable in my view. That said, the editorial stance of the Economist comes through extremely clearly in their writings and they are unabashedly economically liberal. Your characterization of NYT as being less ideologically diverse really doesn't match my experience. Your list is incredibly West focused and honestly not that ideologically diverse, with the Guardian I guess supposed to take the "left" position.

JAlexoid 5y ago
> NYT as being less ideologically diverse NYT has lost my subscription, after they just straight up started running exaggerated stories. > Your list is incredibly West focused I read in 4 languages, would you like some news sources in Russian, Lithuanian or Italian?

tomkat0789 5y ago

+1. I sometimes regret subscribing to Financial Times, but their bias is pretty easy to identify and accept/reject once you understand it. I counterbalance it with Jacobian (far-left/communist - choose your adjective - news). There's an adage in math modeling/statistics: all models are wrong, but some are useful. Here, all newspapers are biased, but some are useful.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
whimsicalism 5y ago
Jacobin, not Jacobian :) Unless there is some link between calculus and socialism that I have yet to discover