3 ms·
One thing I noticed about The Economist is that every so often they'll bring up some interesting criticism of a widely held view. Then a few days later they'll
by scythe 4y ago
One thing I noticed about The Economist is that every so often they'll bring up some interesting criticism of a widely held view. Then a few days later they'll publish an article vigorously supporting the Current Thing. A particularly obvious example was when they had a column about Ukraine from John Mearshimer, and the various follow-ups. They also ran that takedown of Mohammed bin Salman but periodically tout the upsides of Saudi Arabia.
I don't hold it against them, really; it's a business, and modern journalism relies on maintaining relationships with sources, who are often government officials and agencies. It's not too hard to recognize the stuff that gets published "defensively" once you're used to that.
- nullspace 4y agoI’ve noticed this but I don’t look at it as maintaining relationships. If you are going to cover a topic deeply better cover all sides of it rather than just a criticism piece or a puff piece. This is what Keeps me coming back to economist.
- biophysboy 4y agoThis is an interesting perspective. Is it harder to maintain these relationships now than before? If so, why?
- scythe 4y agoI'm no expert on the topic, but anyone in a position of influence has a lot more options for communicating with the public than they did a few decades ago. Leaks from SCOTUS were unimaginable in the 20th century, for example. Under the usual supply-demand assumptions, that means that any particular journalist has a lot less power in the relationship.
- otikik 4y agoConcentration of wealth could be one reason. Getting one petrol mogul angry in the 80s was no biggie, today’s billionaires will literally buy your whole newspaper out.
- HDThoreaun 4y agoPublishing opposing viewpoints is incredibly common. Getting opinions that go against the editors is the whole point of op-eds
- ROTMetro 4y agoThey gave a platform to Mearshimer and his 'my entire argument is built on the thesis that Putin has never lied (even though he has lied)'? Glad I've skipped reading it the last year.