4 ms·
The Economist is a pretty reputable publication. Yes they have some biases but “slander” is a strong term that insinuates that it doesn’t have a strong groundin
by pixelatedindex 2y ago
The Economist is a pretty reputable publication. Yes they have some biases but “slander” is a strong term that insinuates that it doesn’t have a strong grounding in facts or is written to explicitly cause uproar and not inform. It belongs to places like The Sun or The Daily Mail.
Would you please point to an example or two where it is so one-sided that it’s far from the truth?
- badgersnake 2y agoPlus, if you write it down it’s libel not slander. And given the ridiculous libel laws in the UK, to do so would not be a good idea.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoStronger: The Economist is used to having to operate under UK libel laws, which are far stronger than US laws. Truth is an absolute defense against a claim of libel in the US; in the UK it isn't. So accusing them of slander is not particularly believable. I'd need to see a specific claim, evidence that the claim was false, and evidence that the falsehood rose to the legal standard of slander. A bare claim, with no evidence, just looks like overheated rhetoric by someone who doesn't like The Economist's position, but who can't actually do the work of refuting it.