7 ms·

I used to find the Economist great, but with the corrosiveness of everything this last bit, they seem to sneak agenda into articles now days in a way I feel lik

I used to find the Economist great, but with the corrosiveness of everything this last bit, they seem to sneak agenda into articles now days in a way I feel like this whole post is trying to move away from. Maybe as a lost Libertarian who can't stand the control everyone's lives progressives I feel that has crept quite a bit into the Economist. It's funny it bothers me as I have reached a point where I feel Libertarianism just isn't compatible with the realities of the modern world as much as this child of hippies wishes it was and am looking for new understanding, but I always leave the Economist feeling like their American reporting on subjects I'm informed on is very manipulating which then makes me doubt their reporting on subjects I don't have enough context for deep personal understanding.

andi999 5y ago
Did you try the financial times? I sometimes find them shockingly unbiased.
- Justin_K 5y ago
  In college we were required to get a subscription to FT and I found it quite liberal. As was the professor who required the subscription.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Hmmm ... they are certainly right of center afaict. If they are quite liberal, what do you call the vast landscape to the left of them? Who is a centrist?
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      This may be a case where the word “liberal” means something different in the US than the rest of the English speaking world.
secabeen 5y ago
The Economist is clearly not a Libertarian newspaper. They represent the classical liberal position, which is not Libertarian, and never has been.
- temp8964 5y ago
  I have no idea what you are talking about. There is not a definitive / clear line between classical liberal and libertarian. The comment seems to be unnecessarily divisive and seeking for flame war.
  - jknoepfler 5y ago
    I'm puzzled by that reaction. In my head at least, the distinction is pretty deep, and describing The Economist as "libertarian" in any sense would be clearly misplaced, other than to say it sometimes supports positions libertarians also agree with. Historically, when The Economist was founded, libertarianism would have been associated with French anarchism. The core, consistent theme of libertarianism is that individual rights trump arbitrary interference by a collective. The various forms of anarchism are sort of natural "extreme" forms of libertarianism. Intellectually, libertarianism starts with a negative claim that except in extraordinary cases, the collective has no right to interfere with individuals. This remains true today. Core items (legalization of prostitution, drugs, elimination of many taxes) begin with the pretext that the collective has no right to regulate individual behavior in these domains. Classical liberalism emerged in Britain (Locke, Smith, Mill, etc.). It has roots in a blend of English utilitarianism and enlightenment-era attempt to root the form of government in reason. "Rights" in classical liberalism are important, but they aren't necessarily more foundational than well-being. Anarchism is seem as trivially untenable (Hobbes' "nature red of tooth and claw"). Liberalism tries to identify a core set of functions (security, laws and their enforcement, public infrastructure) and a set of mechanisms (constitutions, elections, courts, etc.) to implement them, and has a very enlightenment-era emphasis on building institutions that are robust to "bad" actors. It does cleave towards a minimalist view of government, and does elevate rights like freedom of speech, but these are seen as intrinsically grey and are framed much more in terms of limiting the power of government institutions to ensure that they remain true to their mission/function. I don't think that's flame bait, or super controversial. Do the words mean something else to you?
yojo 5y ago
I haven't noticed this kind of bias in the US reporting, but my personal views skew moderate liberal so it might be hitting a personal blindspot. The main stances that seem to go against coastal US media I've seen are: 1) Trans rights, particularly with youth transitioning. The Economist seems to have an article every week or two talking about health implications, controversy in female sports, or detransitioning. 2) Free speech. The Economist is very critical of any perceived censorship, and will frequently cover perceived excesses from the left in the US, particularly in higher education. Generally I do not think the Economist does a great job of visually separating their editorial content from their news content. In many cases visual treatment of a column looks very close to a regular article, and the editorials at the front of each issue look (at a glance) indistinguishable from news stories. Each issue will also have a larger "briefing" on a prominent world issue that definitely blurs the lines between news and opinion. As a reader of many years, I've taken to skipping the editorial content, skimming the briefings, and taking the columns case-by-case. But I can imagine occasional readers having a different experience than I do.
dionian 5y ago
The Economist, like NPR, are good at sounding informed and unbiased, but wind up to be egregiously ideologically compromised
- duped 5y ago
  Can you give some examples? Particularly with NPR, you have to focus on particular shows and stations. There's no central editorial staff for the content that comes from their member stations. For example the Takeaway has quite different editorial standards than All Things Considered or Morning Edition.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    For the “network” content, NPR has good reporting but hammers topics again and again and again and again. The selection of stories tells the tale. Whenever the topic de jour hits, you’ll get a good 7-10 minutes of patter about it every hour for a month. I’m all for it, and don’t consider them “compromised”, but there’s typically not enough content to support that level of coverage.
    - duped 5y ago
      Can you give an example of what you mean by that?
  - pydry 5y ago
    With the Economist - their support of the Iraq war. If something has elite consensus they will usually support it. This is probably the last place where youd want an ideological blind spot to be, also.
    - duped 5y ago
      Do you have an article in mind?
  - jollybean 5y ago
    NPR has a subtle, but fairly clear centre left bias. "There's no central editorial staff" - there's no need to have a central staff if you hire the same types of people. Hear it from former senior NPR Exec. himself [1] I'm not supporting this man's views at all, other than to point out he gives a fairly clear articulation into how 'bias' doesn't remotely need to have some kind of central authority and that it absolutely exists at NPR. In fact, for someone who doesn't see the bias in something like NPR, learning to see the bias in an otherwise fairly respectable institution which does have fairly high standards and isn't so interest in flame-bait such as NPR - would be a worthy exercise. 'Culture' is probably the root of all bias in most places, not some 'central committee'. People who don't fit the mood are pushed said, those who have 'the correct opinions' are promoted. It's a perennial feature of human organisations you can see this in corporate culture as well. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0qyeFVf7bg&ab_channel=TheRubinReport https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0qyeFVf7bg&ab_channel=TheRu...
cnelsenmilt 5y ago
> I have reached a point where I feel Libertarianism just isn't compatible with the realities of the modern world as much as this child of hippies wishes it was You may have interest in the writings of the Niskanen Center https://www.niskanencenter.org/ https://www.niskanencenter.org/ They work from a similar position. For example, I was hugely impressed by this essay https://www.niskanencenter.org/what-the-pandemic-revealed/ https://www.niskanencenter.org/what-the-pandemic-revealed/ I don't know a regular publication devoted to this view, unfortunately.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  How did you find them? Do you know who reads them or where they are popular? I came across them recently and was both impressed and puzzled that I'd never heard of them and never head anyone discuss them. I haven't read that particular essay, but maybe submit it?
  - cnelsenmilt 5y ago
    I can't remember, unfortunately. Possibly it was forwarded by a friend? Or it showed up in some feed or another.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Reason magazine is in broadly the same territory.
Spooky23 5y ago
I agree. The Economist is like NPR for rich people and diplomats. Head out to the parlor with your cigar and jacket and enjoy it. They are good in that they are informative and not subtle about the voice of the paper. But it gets a little boring to me if I read it for a few months.
- andi999 5y ago
  What is NPR? I only found Nevada Public Radio.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    National Public Radio.
AitchEmArsey 5y ago
I subscribe to the Economist too and perceive their reporting as still being reasonably libertarian without venturing into tinfoil-hat territory, but being in the UK I guess I get both a different balance of articles and also have a different perception of libertarianism.

andi999 5y ago

Did you try the financial times? I sometimes find them shockingly unbiased.

Justin_K 5y ago
In college we were required to get a subscription to FT and I found it quite liberal. As was the professor who required the subscription.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Hmmm ... they are certainly right of center afaict. If they are quite liberal, what do you call the vast landscape to the left of them? Who is a centrist?
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    This may be a case where the word “liberal” means something different in the US than the rest of the English speaking world.

secabeen 5y ago

The Economist is clearly not a Libertarian newspaper. They represent the classical liberal position, which is not Libertarian, and never has been.

temp8964 5y ago
I have no idea what you are talking about. There is not a definitive / clear line between classical liberal and libertarian. The comment seems to be unnecessarily divisive and seeking for flame war.
- jknoepfler 5y ago
  I'm puzzled by that reaction. In my head at least, the distinction is pretty deep, and describing The Economist as "libertarian" in any sense would be clearly misplaced, other than to say it sometimes supports positions libertarians also agree with. Historically, when The Economist was founded, libertarianism would have been associated with French anarchism. The core, consistent theme of libertarianism is that individual rights trump arbitrary interference by a collective. The various forms of anarchism are sort of natural "extreme" forms of libertarianism. Intellectually, libertarianism starts with a negative claim that except in extraordinary cases, the collective has no right to interfere with individuals. This remains true today. Core items (legalization of prostitution, drugs, elimination of many taxes) begin with the pretext that the collective has no right to regulate individual behavior in these domains. Classical liberalism emerged in Britain (Locke, Smith, Mill, etc.). It has roots in a blend of English utilitarianism and enlightenment-era attempt to root the form of government in reason. "Rights" in classical liberalism are important, but they aren't necessarily more foundational than well-being. Anarchism is seem as trivially untenable (Hobbes' "nature red of tooth and claw"). Liberalism tries to identify a core set of functions (security, laws and their enforcement, public infrastructure) and a set of mechanisms (constitutions, elections, courts, etc.) to implement them, and has a very enlightenment-era emphasis on building institutions that are robust to "bad" actors. It does cleave towards a minimalist view of government, and does elevate rights like freedom of speech, but these are seen as intrinsically grey and are framed much more in terms of limiting the power of government institutions to ensure that they remain true to their mission/function. I don't think that's flame bait, or super controversial. Do the words mean something else to you?

yojo 5y ago

I haven't noticed this kind of bias in the US reporting, but my personal views skew moderate liberal so it might be hitting a personal blindspot. The main stances that seem to go against coastal US media I've seen are: 1) Trans rights, particularly with youth transitioning. The Economist seems to have an article every week or two talking about health implications, controversy in female sports, or detransitioning. 2) Free speech. The Economist is very critical of any perceived censorship, and will frequently cover perceived excesses from the left in the US, particularly in higher education. Generally I do not think the Economist does a great job of visually separating their editorial content from their news content. In many cases visual treatment of a column looks very close to a regular article, and the editorials at the front of each issue look (at a glance) indistinguishable from news stories. Each issue will also have a larger "briefing" on a prominent world issue that definitely blurs the lines between news and opinion. As a reader of many years, I've taken to skipping the editorial content, skimming the briefings, and taking the columns case-by-case. But I can imagine occasional readers having a different experience than I do.

dionian 5y ago

The Economist, like NPR, are good at sounding informed and unbiased, but wind up to be egregiously ideologically compromised

duped 5y ago
Can you give some examples? Particularly with NPR, you have to focus on particular shows and stations. There's no central editorial staff for the content that comes from their member stations. For example the Takeaway has quite different editorial standards than All Things Considered or Morning Edition.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  For the “network” content, NPR has good reporting but hammers topics again and again and again and again. The selection of stories tells the tale. Whenever the topic de jour hits, you’ll get a good 7-10 minutes of patter about it every hour for a month. I’m all for it, and don’t consider them “compromised”, but there’s typically not enough content to support that level of coverage.
  - duped 5y ago
    Can you give an example of what you mean by that?
- pydry 5y ago
  With the Economist - their support of the Iraq war. If something has elite consensus they will usually support it. This is probably the last place where youd want an ideological blind spot to be, also.
  - duped 5y ago
    Do you have an article in mind?
- jollybean 5y ago
  NPR has a subtle, but fairly clear centre left bias. "There's no central editorial staff" - there's no need to have a central staff if you hire the same types of people. Hear it from former senior NPR Exec. himself [1] I'm not supporting this man's views at all, other than to point out he gives a fairly clear articulation into how 'bias' doesn't remotely need to have some kind of central authority and that it absolutely exists at NPR. In fact, for someone who doesn't see the bias in something like NPR, learning to see the bias in an otherwise fairly respectable institution which does have fairly high standards and isn't so interest in flame-bait such as NPR - would be a worthy exercise. 'Culture' is probably the root of all bias in most places, not some 'central committee'. People who don't fit the mood are pushed said, those who have 'the correct opinions' are promoted. It's a perennial feature of human organisations you can see this in corporate culture as well. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0qyeFVf7bg&ab_channel=TheRubinReport https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0qyeFVf7bg&ab_channel=TheRu...

cnelsenmilt 5y ago

> I have reached a point where I feel Libertarianism just isn't compatible with the realities of the modern world as much as this child of hippies wishes it was You may have interest in the writings of the Niskanen Center https://www.niskanencenter.org/ https://www.niskanencenter.org/ They work from a similar position. For example, I was hugely impressed by this essay https://www.niskanencenter.org/what-the-pandemic-revealed/ https://www.niskanencenter.org/what-the-pandemic-revealed/ I don't know a regular publication devoted to this view, unfortunately.

wolverine876 5y ago
How did you find them? Do you know who reads them or where they are popular? I came across them recently and was both impressed and puzzled that I'd never heard of them and never head anyone discuss them. I haven't read that particular essay, but maybe submit it?
- cnelsenmilt 5y ago
  I can't remember, unfortunately. Possibly it was forwarded by a friend? Or it showed up in some feed or another.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Reason magazine is in broadly the same territory.

Spooky23 5y ago

I agree. The Economist is like NPR for rich people and diplomats. Head out to the parlor with your cigar and jacket and enjoy it. They are good in that they are informative and not subtle about the voice of the paper. But it gets a little boring to me if I read it for a few months.

andi999 5y ago
What is NPR? I only found Nevada Public Radio.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  National Public Radio.

AitchEmArsey 5y ago

I subscribe to the Economist too and perceive their reporting as still being reasonably libertarian without venturing into tinfoil-hat territory, but being in the UK I guess I get both a different balance of articles and also have a different perception of libertarianism.