4 ms·

Are you saying you would prefer them to be more one-sided?

• davidw 3y ago
  I'm saying you need to look at an issue and the people involved and actually form an opinion sometimes. Not every issue can be split down the middle. An extreme example from US history would be slavery. Most issues are going to have much more nuance than that, but there's usually a better course of action. The Economist has never been just 'straight up journalism', so I expect them to have an informed opinion. Maybe I disagree with it in some cases, and that's fine, but I find this "on one hand... on the other hand" stuff where they go out of their way to dig up something to say for both sides insufferable.
  • briga 3y ago
    I’m not sure I see the issue. There’s always Fox News or CNN if you want something less balanced
    • davidw 3y ago
      It sounds like you are not very familiar with The Economist as a publication.
      • briga 3y ago
        Nope, I’m pretty familiar with it
• slg 3y ago
  When one side is using the threat of what the article calls an "outcome [that] would be devastating for global markets" as a negotiating tactic, I would prefer if journalists were more forceful in their criticism of that approach. Sometimes there is an objectively bad option in a political debate. Failing to raise the debt ceiling is one of those. We can have all sorts of debates about the US's debt and how we should cut expenses or raise revenue, but defaulting on our debts to "win" that debate is an objectively bad approach and journalists should make that clear.