3 ms·
I really like the economist, they are quite centric in their views but don't hide a certain bias for strong representative democracies, deregulation, globalism
by epolanski 4mo ago
I really like the economist, they are quite centric in their views but don't hide a certain bias for strong representative democracies, deregulation, globalism and open (publicly traded) markets.
Their writing style is probably the cleanest in the industry and they always point out potential conflict of interest even though I've never seen the write anything really positive about the companies Exor controls (Stellantis, Philips, etc).
- hliyan 4mo agoThe Economist Group is largely owned by the Agnelli family ("Italy's Kennedys"), Canadian billionaire Stephen Smith, the Rothschilds and others, which is likely a significant factor in those biases.
- amarcheschi 4mo agoI don't know why this is downvoted, in italy agnelli owned via Gedi group various newspapers and as you can imagine it's not ideal - although since this march group Gedi changed owner
- mejutoco 4mo agoOne things I like is that when the economist talks about a business or an author, they mention if there is a conflict of interest (this and that works for this or is owned by that)
- epolanski 4mo agoThe economist hasn't changed much their editorial views or leanings in a century.
- gms 4mo agoThey've been around since before their current owners were born and espousing the same philosophies.
- pydry 4mo agoIf you find a topic where reality lies outside of the overton window for western elites at the time theyll reliably get it wrong. There are a number of examples of this (e.g. the Afghanistan and Iraq wars). They usually use a lot of hedging language to cover their behinds when they make predictions, though, so their predictions are usually more nudges and winks than they are commitments.
- giacomoforte 4mo agoNobody ever recognizes themselves as extremist.
- bluebarbet 4mo agoIndeed. I unsubscribed (after many years) out of frustration at their incessant and unquestioning incantation of orthodox economic dogmas, in particular economic growth (which is at the very least a flawed indicator). This is what religion looks like. I was paying smart people to do some of my thinking for me, yet I couldn't help but conclude that my mind was more open than theirs. Still, the quality of The Economist's writing is in a league of its own. No denying that.
- blackbear_ 4mo agoHaving similar thoughts at times. What are you reading nowadays?
- bluebarbet 4mo agoThe Atlantic. Excellent writers, excellent editing. But as a European I find the US slant is a problem. I do miss The Economist's international coverage.
- DicIfTEx 4mo agoCoincidentally enough, frequent Atlantic contributor James Fallows wrote a rather scathing assessment of the Economist (albeit in the Post) way back in 1991: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot...
- bluebarbet 4mo agoTo be fair, people have been writing scathing assessments of newspapers they don't like for centuries.
- jrowen 4mo agoAfter reading some of that article and the one from Current Affairs in the other comment, I decided I don't have much of a taste for that genre. They may have some decent points, but it's such toxic bickering.
- billfor 4mo agoThey are not "quite centric" politically, unless you are a liberal. Contrast the number of times the phrase "far-right" appears with the equivalent (far-left, progressive, radical left, etc..). They go out of their way to use negative adjectives describing right-wing (US definition) people or concepts, but not so much the left. The "Lexington" column is completely devoted to liberal (not classical liberal) ideas, and I would challenge anyone to note a right of center view (US definition) in that column over the last ten years. I've subscribed to the Economist on and off for twenty years and definitely noticed a change in bias when Zany took over.
- adamwk 4mo agoThe Economist is a British journal, so why would you use US definition of right wing to evaluate their centrality?
- kensai 4mo agoValid comment, but prolly because this is the reality he knows. Which is fair.
- billfor 4mo agoWe do read the Economist in the US, and Lexington in particular in the US section. I use the US definition of right wing because I'm in the US and didn't want to confuse Europeans that have a different definition of what "right" is when I use it in a sentence. All I was doing is correcting (and providing evidence for) the reference that they are "quite centric". They are not anywhere near the center of issues consistently. If you want more evidence, Allsides also rate it left of center, https://www.allsides.com/news-source/economist-media-bias https://www.allsides.com/news-source/economist-media-bias I notice it because I've been reading it for 20+ years. In the last 10 years it has taken a notable turn to the left. Whatever your viewpoint, the "tone" and "lean" of the magazine has shifted in the last decade. It's still a good source of information and I do read it every week.
- jrmg 4mo agoI love that the top two (currently) replies to this claim that the Economist is ‘centric’ are one that’s arguing that it’s obviously too left wing for that label, and another arguing that it’s obviously too right-wing.