7 ms·

I friggin love the Atlantic even though most of the time they have a way different political view than me. They don't hide their view but instead of assuming it

I friggin love the Atlantic even though most of the time they have a way different political view than me. They don't hide their view but instead of assuming it's universal they give details and context for their views, where as the Economist seems to hide their agenda and present the underlying story to lead you to their point of view based on the facts and details they choose to report. The Atlantic has discourse and discussion, which is what I want. And they are not afraid to challenge their own core ideas. They are like my liberal hippie parents raising me with critical thinking skills, "you are free to have your opinion, here's ours and here's how we came to them". It's hard to explain the difference, especially as I agree (or I should say want to agree) more often with the Economist's politics.

mastazi 5y ago
> the Economist seems to hide their agenda I think that they are pretty clear about their agenda to be honest. E.g. they explained and even gave a name to their stance ("extreme centre"), they openly endorse candidates in many elections worldwide, they often include sentences in articles such as "this paper believes that..." etc. I don't agree with some of their points, but by making them explicit they also make them easy to filter out IMHO
- thrashh 5y ago
  Yeah the Economist is pretty well known to be neoliberal. Which is fine… I subscribe and it’s a pretty good source if you understand that.
  - strictlybiznes 5y ago
    Neocon*
    - Clubber 5y ago
      Neoliberalism is not related to liberalism, its economics theory we've been living in since Reagan. Ds and Rs embrace it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism Neoconservatism is more a social theory, i.e. pushback from 60s social liberals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
      - coolso 5y ago
        The Wikipedia article is quite misleading; the current neoliberal movement absolutely leans left. In modern usage, neoliberal refers to a particular type of liberal/Democrat.
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    Why are the journalists and writers names not revealed?
    - smcnally 5y ago
      That’s a specific editorial decision[0] to present work in The Economist’s voice rather than the individual journalists’. [0] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/09/04/why-are-the-economists-writers-anonymous https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/09/04/...
      - smcnally 5y ago
        ~no regwall https://medium.economist.com/why-are-the-economists-writers-anonymous-8f573745631d https://medium.economist.com/why-are-the-economists-writers-... and previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14015708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14015708
- andrepd 5y ago
  >They don't hide it. I think that they are pretty clear about their agenda to be honest. E.g. they explained and even gave a name to their stance ("extreme centre") My point exactly, that's anything but clear and honest! Calling their views, which are objectively right-wing neoliberal capitalist, calling them "centre" or "moderate" is part of an attempt to naturalise (if that makes sense) their worldview into something that is objective, common-sense, and neutral.
  - chinchilla2020 5y ago
    Is hackernews turning into twitter? This seems like a comment from reddit or twitter.
    - andrepd 5y ago
      Ironically yours is the most unsubstantive in this whole thread.
  - mastazi 5y ago
    > right-wing Ask a few self-professed conservatives if they agree with the Economist and see what they say.
  - kelp 5y ago
    I don't think there is objective agreement that the Economists views are right-wing neoliberal capitalist. AllSides rates them as "Leans left": https://www.allsides.com/news-source/economist https://www.allsides.com/news-source/economist They've endorsed Democrats for US President since 2004. Ad Fontes also rates them slightly left leaning: https://adfontesmedia.com/the-economist-bias-and-reliability/ https://adfontesmedia.com/the-economist-bias-and-reliability...
    - eyelidlessness 5y ago
      [flagged]
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Yes and no. The Economist has a Prospectus which spells out its ideology. I'd known of and read the ... newspaper ... for three decades before learning of this and reading it. 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 That is, The Economist is, and always has been, overtly free-trade propaganda. (Though one might argue that the meaning(s) and connotations of that term have evolved since first proposed in 1843.) HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29285722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29285722
blaser-waffle 5y ago
The Economist is usually pretty clear about which side it supports. They generally try to outline both sides of a discussion but are often a little weak in championing a cause that they're not for. But it's rarely ambiguous where they stand, or why.
darkteflon 5y ago
The Atlantic is superb. Their pandemic coverage has been my go-to for that subject since the beginning. They’re consistently one, two steps ahead on best mitigation strategies for public policy and have been since the beginning. They were talking about things like HEPA filtration and open windows when everyone else was stuck on masks and hand-washing, for example.

mastazi 5y ago

> the Economist seems to hide their agenda I think that they are pretty clear about their agenda to be honest. E.g. they explained and even gave a name to their stance ("extreme centre"), they openly endorse candidates in many elections worldwide, they often include sentences in articles such as "this paper believes that..." etc. I don't agree with some of their points, but by making them explicit they also make them easy to filter out IMHO

thrashh 5y ago
Yeah the Economist is pretty well known to be neoliberal. Which is fine… I subscribe and it’s a pretty good source if you understand that.
- strictlybiznes 5y ago
  Neocon*
  - Clubber 5y ago
    Neoliberalism is not related to liberalism, its economics theory we've been living in since Reagan. Ds and Rs embrace it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism Neoconservatism is more a social theory, i.e. pushback from 60s social liberals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
    - coolso 5y ago
      The Wikipedia article is quite misleading; the current neoliberal movement absolutely leans left. In modern usage, neoliberal refers to a particular type of liberal/Democrat.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  Why are the journalists and writers names not revealed?
  - smcnally 5y ago
    That’s a specific editorial decision[0] to present work in The Economist’s voice rather than the individual journalists’. [0] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/09/04/why-are-the-economists-writers-anonymous https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/09/04/...
    - smcnally 5y ago
      ~no regwall https://medium.economist.com/why-are-the-economists-writers-anonymous-8f573745631d https://medium.economist.com/why-are-the-economists-writers-... and previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14015708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14015708
andrepd 5y ago
>They don't hide it. I think that they are pretty clear about their agenda to be honest. E.g. they explained and even gave a name to their stance ("extreme centre") My point exactly, that's anything but clear and honest! Calling their views, which are objectively right-wing neoliberal capitalist, calling them "centre" or "moderate" is part of an attempt to naturalise (if that makes sense) their worldview into something that is objective, common-sense, and neutral.
- chinchilla2020 5y ago
  Is hackernews turning into twitter? This seems like a comment from reddit or twitter.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    Ironically yours is the most unsubstantive in this whole thread.
- mastazi 5y ago
  > right-wing Ask a few self-professed conservatives if they agree with the Economist and see what they say.
- kelp 5y ago
  I don't think there is objective agreement that the Economists views are right-wing neoliberal capitalist. AllSides rates them as "Leans left": https://www.allsides.com/news-source/economist https://www.allsides.com/news-source/economist They've endorsed Democrats for US President since 2004. Ad Fontes also rates them slightly left leaning: https://adfontesmedia.com/the-economist-bias-and-reliability/ https://adfontesmedia.com/the-economist-bias-and-reliability...
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    [flagged]
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
dredmorbius 5y ago
Yes and no. The Economist has a Prospectus which spells out its ideology. I'd known of and read the ... newspaper ... for three decades before learning of this and reading it. 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 That is, The Economist is, and always has been, overtly free-trade propaganda. (Though one might argue that the meaning(s) and connotations of that term have evolved since first proposed in 1843.) HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29285722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29285722

blaser-waffle 5y ago

The Economist is usually pretty clear about which side it supports. They generally try to outline both sides of a discussion but are often a little weak in championing a cause that they're not for. But it's rarely ambiguous where they stand, or why.

darkteflon 5y ago

The Atlantic is superb. Their pandemic coverage has been my go-to for that subject since the beginning. They’re consistently one, two steps ahead on best mitigation strategies for public policy and have been since the beginning. They were talking about things like HEPA filtration and open windows when everyone else was stuck on masks and hand-washing, for example.