3 ms·

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

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.
  - skrebbel 4y ago
    > You seem to view things with a very broad brush, did you actually read the magazine Yes, the print edition. Care to actually rebuke my arguments instead of making assumptions? > Just as an example, did you read the things Mearsheimer wrote? I googled this because I was confused because I could not remember seeing his ideas there (which I remember finding totally ridiculous). Turns out this was a "by invitation" section, clearly presented as an outside opinion. I haven't seen them reiterate his ideas anywhere (which I'd summarize as "it's totally OK for powerful countries to scare neighbours into becoming 'buffer zone' client states without any say in the matter"), they're very much for Ukraine's ability to determine their own future. If you're angry about a paper publishing opinion pieces you're going to be angry about just about every paper out there because every one of them is going to sooner or later publish an opinion piece that you disagree with. That's the whole idea of opinion sections.

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.
- skrebbel 4y ago
  > You seem to view things with a very broad brush, did you actually read the magazine Yes, the print edition. Care to actually rebuke my arguments instead of making assumptions? > Just as an example, did you read the things Mearsheimer wrote? I googled this because I was confused because I could not remember seeing his ideas there (which I remember finding totally ridiculous). Turns out this was a "by invitation" section, clearly presented as an outside opinion. I haven't seen them reiterate his ideas anywhere (which I'd summarize as "it's totally OK for powerful countries to scare neighbours into becoming 'buffer zone' client states without any say in the matter"), they're very much for Ukraine's ability to determine their own future. If you're angry about a paper publishing opinion pieces you're going to be angry about just about every paper out there because every one of them is going to sooner or later publish an opinion piece that you disagree with. That's the whole idea of opinion sections.