4 ms·
I don’t see any other publication doing this kind of analysis of themselves, pointing out the mistakes they’ve made in the past. Even in this article they ment
by testdelacc1 3mo ago
I don’t see any other publication doing this kind of analysis of themselves, pointing out the mistakes they’ve made in the past.
Even in this article they mention “The Economist was convinced by the false claim that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction”, something they remind the reader of each time the Iraq War is discussed. I remember an article from 2017 that said the Economist got it wrong, while a less honest publication wouldn’t have.
It’s more remarkable considering that the economist’s articles and opinions are published without the authors details. So when an article gets it wrong, it reflects poorly on the economist as a whole. They can’t simply blame the previous guy, it’s their fault.
They’ll be talking about how they got the Iraq War wrong as long as someone mentions it even in passing 50 years from now. That’s candour I appreciate.
- hliyan 3mo agoThis is a very charitable reading of why The Economist does not have bylines.
- SpecialistK 3mo agoIt is, and I'm aware of the less charitable (perhaps more likely) readings. But much of the time it isn't difficult to know who to attribute because they are explicitly featured in podcasts about the respective article.
- testdelacc1 3mo agoYou’ve misread what I wrote. I wasn’t explaining why there are no bylines. I was saying that when there are no bylines, any mistake reflects poorly on the newspaper as a whole. It wasn’t Shashank Joshi who got it wrong, it was the Economist.