4 ms·

What narrative manipulation have you seen from The Economist? I haven’t noticed it so perhaps I am being manipulated! I’d love to hear your insight!

pjc50 4y ago
The Economist has always, since its foundation, been capital-L Liberal. That's the lens through which everything is written. Knowing that informs you about the selection of topics they cover and the angles they will take. It doesn't make it bad - I read it for years although gave up mid-2010s - but it can be quite predictable. It's still capable of producing very high quality and thoughtful writing, which makes it more annoying when they choose not to. Recommendation: maybe the FT?
- williamcotton 4y ago
  I’m very aware of political and economic lens of The Economist as I’ve been a subscriber for over two decades. I haven’t noticed a change other than a bit of a shift leftwards since Zanny became editor-in-chief, but I don’t mind one bit, as they haven’t lost the writers that promote classical liberalism, just added a bit of an internal critique of some aspects of academic economics. But I’m very open to the idea that I’m missing something… especially since I’m such a fanboy!
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    I stopped regularly reading it a while back, but the articles I end up on seem to indicate a shift to addressing a USA libertarian audience rather than a previous economics-led but with some shred of humanity. That may just be selection bias of the articles I read.
PedroBatista 4y ago
From what I've casually noticed, in recent years they declared the EU dead at least 4 or 5 times and the bias towards some kind of Liberal US/UK lead/controlled World is clear. They are liberal and anglo, so of course the bias is there ( also smug, but that's pretty much since their beginnings) , but they try to pass their views as fact, meaning: "There's chat going around, this is what the reality is and will be.." They ( as many others ), didn't view Ukraine fighting back and Western help as a good thing, Ukraine capitulation was "the right thing to happen" because for them Russia controlling Ukraine was a "fact of life". All this while their authors try to project an image of unmatched economic prowess but also rock-solid morals..
- williamcotton 4y ago
  You must be reading a different magazine than I have because The Economist has been writing a lot about the need for the US and the West to provide military and economic aid in support of Ukraine!
  - PedroBatista 4y ago
    Yeah, I've been ready the magazine for more than a couple years. When "nothing is gonna happen" and business was good, there was the need to "support"/sell Ukraine stuff. When shit got real "It was important for the World to don't confront Russia and let it be", when Russia flubbed the military support for Ukraine needed to be much more! more!. I'm sure now that the war is extensive but also will be long, they'll try to push the "Listen.. you have to broke a deal with Putin." Every take they had over the years is in line with pretty much every tabloid. My main criticism is they pretend they are something else, some high society deep thinkers, when in reality they are not. They've missed every economic crash and found every one of it the same way all the others did.
- FranklinMaillot 4y ago
  I didn't notice any bias towards Russia in The Economist, quite the contrary. Their March 31st issue was titled "Why Ukraine must win". https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2022-04-02 https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2022-04-02
- skrebbel 4y ago
  > They ( as many others ), didn't view Ukraine fighting back and Western help as a good thing, Ukraine capitulation was "the right thing to happen" Nearly every issue since February this year has contained calls to support Ukraine, titles like "Why Ukraine must win" and so on. They're very hawkish pro a Ukraine all-out victory, often describing Ukraine as fighting for all of Europe's (or even the entire West's) freedom.
  - PedroBatista 4y ago
    You seem to view things with a very broad brush, did you actually read the magazine or just peruse? Just as an example, did you read the things Mearsheimer wrote? Since this Economist thing has become a quagmire due to Ukraine ( my fault for bring it up ), I reiterate my point: I don't really have anything against them, not even their biases. I do get pissed when they somehow ride their wave of superiority when in fact they are pretty much mainstream. Yeah, they are better than the DailyMail, but not by the amount they project.
axlee 4y ago
Anything that they write about France (or southern europe in general) is utter crap and often disproven by reality a few years later. It reeks of anglosaxon exceptionalism.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  Well that’s nothing new!
- rswail 4y ago
  They were and are right about Berlusconi though.
Aromasin 4y ago
The way they discuss the UK/EU dynamic rankles me. They spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about Europe, while talking about the UK as if it's on the cusp of a new age. I also loathe their coverage of the UK budget. It's a personally belief that George Osbourne's tenure in government has single-handedly sent the UK in a seemingly bottomless downward spiral back into 1970's Britain. He delivered his budget based on short-term fixes and populist gambits. The Economist talk about him and his policies as if he were some misunderstood hero of the age, and laud the absurd austerity measures of that government. Liz Truss recycles those same policies of tax cuts to the those who need it least, and the Economist does the same; that is, until the whole market finally comes crashing down. They back track as fast as they can, trying to distance themselves from her, talking about "how they would have done differently". It just seems so two-faced. These are just a couple of examples but in summary, when their own fundamental beliefs are shown to fail, be it social or economic, they change tact so as to appear in the right instead of owning up and admitting any fault.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  I should have added “in the last year” to make it explicit that I was directly responding to OP when they said they had noticed a shift “in the last year”. I haven’t noticed this shift! The shift I did notice was when Zanny took over as editor-in-chief a few years back.
  - Aromasin 4y ago
    That's sort of my point. It's something I've noticed in articles in the past year or so. This ballet around sticking to their free market principles, while also distancing themselves from discussing the matter when it fails. Looking through older issues, I can spot a few where they've gone "we got it wrong, this is what position we will take this time". There's a distinct lack of ownership in recent ones.
wiredearp 4y ago
This guy over on https://indica.medium.com/how-the-economist-is-just-propaganda-163684134b9f https://indica.medium.com/how-the-economist-is-just-propagan... comes up with a healthy analysis of exactly that.
- Nimitz14 4y ago
  The writing here is so pathetically dramatic I suggest you wait a decade or so before recommending an article again.

pjc50 4y ago

The Economist has always, since its foundation, been capital-L Liberal. That's the lens through which everything is written. Knowing that informs you about the selection of topics they cover and the angles they will take. It doesn't make it bad - I read it for years although gave up mid-2010s - but it can be quite predictable. It's still capable of producing very high quality and thoughtful writing, which makes it more annoying when they choose not to. Recommendation: maybe the FT?

williamcotton 4y ago
I’m very aware of political and economic lens of The Economist as I’ve been a subscriber for over two decades. I haven’t noticed a change other than a bit of a shift leftwards since Zanny became editor-in-chief, but I don’t mind one bit, as they haven’t lost the writers that promote classical liberalism, just added a bit of an internal critique of some aspects of academic economics. But I’m very open to the idea that I’m missing something… especially since I’m such a fanboy!
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  I stopped regularly reading it a while back, but the articles I end up on seem to indicate a shift to addressing a USA libertarian audience rather than a previous economics-led but with some shred of humanity. That may just be selection bias of the articles I read.

PedroBatista 4y ago

From what I've casually noticed, in recent years they declared the EU dead at least 4 or 5 times and the bias towards some kind of Liberal US/UK lead/controlled World is clear. They are liberal and anglo, so of course the bias is there ( also smug, but that's pretty much since their beginnings) , but they try to pass their views as fact, meaning: "There's chat going around, this is what the reality is and will be.." They ( as many others ), didn't view Ukraine fighting back and Western help as a good thing, Ukraine capitulation was "the right thing to happen" because for them Russia controlling Ukraine was a "fact of life". All this while their authors try to project an image of unmatched economic prowess but also rock-solid morals..

williamcotton 4y ago
You must be reading a different magazine than I have because The Economist has been writing a lot about the need for the US and the West to provide military and economic aid in support of Ukraine!
- PedroBatista 4y ago
  Yeah, I've been ready the magazine for more than a couple years. When "nothing is gonna happen" and business was good, there was the need to "support"/sell Ukraine stuff. When shit got real "It was important for the World to don't confront Russia and let it be", when Russia flubbed the military support for Ukraine needed to be much more! more!. I'm sure now that the war is extensive but also will be long, they'll try to push the "Listen.. you have to broke a deal with Putin." Every take they had over the years is in line with pretty much every tabloid. My main criticism is they pretend they are something else, some high society deep thinkers, when in reality they are not. They've missed every economic crash and found every one of it the same way all the others did.
FranklinMaillot 4y ago
I didn't notice any bias towards Russia in The Economist, quite the contrary. Their March 31st issue was titled "Why Ukraine must win". https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2022-04-02 https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2022-04-02
skrebbel 4y ago
> They ( as many others ), didn't view Ukraine fighting back and Western help as a good thing, Ukraine capitulation was "the right thing to happen" Nearly every issue since February this year has contained calls to support Ukraine, titles like "Why Ukraine must win" and so on. They're very hawkish pro a Ukraine all-out victory, often describing Ukraine as fighting for all of Europe's (or even the entire West's) freedom.
- PedroBatista 4y ago
  You seem to view things with a very broad brush, did you actually read the magazine or just peruse? Just as an example, did you read the things Mearsheimer wrote? Since this Economist thing has become a quagmire due to Ukraine ( my fault for bring it up ), I reiterate my point: I don't really have anything against them, not even their biases. I do get pissed when they somehow ride their wave of superiority when in fact they are pretty much mainstream. Yeah, they are better than the DailyMail, but not by the amount they project.

axlee 4y ago

Anything that they write about France (or southern europe in general) is utter crap and often disproven by reality a few years later. It reeks of anglosaxon exceptionalism.

williamcotton 4y ago
Well that’s nothing new!
rswail 4y ago
They were and are right about Berlusconi though.

Aromasin 4y ago

The way they discuss the UK/EU dynamic rankles me. They spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about Europe, while talking about the UK as if it's on the cusp of a new age. I also loathe their coverage of the UK budget. It's a personally belief that George Osbourne's tenure in government has single-handedly sent the UK in a seemingly bottomless downward spiral back into 1970's Britain. He delivered his budget based on short-term fixes and populist gambits. The Economist talk about him and his policies as if he were some misunderstood hero of the age, and laud the absurd austerity measures of that government. Liz Truss recycles those same policies of tax cuts to the those who need it least, and the Economist does the same; that is, until the whole market finally comes crashing down. They back track as fast as they can, trying to distance themselves from her, talking about "how they would have done differently". It just seems so two-faced. These are just a couple of examples but in summary, when their own fundamental beliefs are shown to fail, be it social or economic, they change tact so as to appear in the right instead of owning up and admitting any fault.

williamcotton 4y ago
I should have added “in the last year” to make it explicit that I was directly responding to OP when they said they had noticed a shift “in the last year”. I haven’t noticed this shift! The shift I did notice was when Zanny took over as editor-in-chief a few years back.
- Aromasin 4y ago
  That's sort of my point. It's something I've noticed in articles in the past year or so. This ballet around sticking to their free market principles, while also distancing themselves from discussing the matter when it fails. Looking through older issues, I can spot a few where they've gone "we got it wrong, this is what position we will take this time". There's a distinct lack of ownership in recent ones.

wiredearp 4y ago

This guy over on https://indica.medium.com/how-the-economist-is-just-propaganda-163684134b9f https://indica.medium.com/how-the-economist-is-just-propagan... comes up with a healthy analysis of exactly that.

Nimitz14 4y ago
The writing here is so pathetically dramatic I suggest you wait a decade or so before recommending an article again.