3 ms·

This editorial is self-serving in the extreme. >When The Economist opines on new ideas and policies, it does so on the basis of their merits, not of who suppor

by nickff 13y ago

This editorial is self-serving in the extreme. >When The Economist opines on new ideas and policies, it does so on the basis of their merits, not of who supports or opposes them. Last October, for example, it outlined a programme of reforms to combat inequality. Most people believe that they make judgments based on merits, but that does not make it so. Even avoiding ad hominem arguments provides no guarantee of objectivity. For example: this idea that inequality is a problem is completely normative, and the ability of policymakers to solve it from the top down is unproven, and still uncertain. In addition, making US presidential endorsements (democratic for the last 3 elections) does not help them look like an impartial spectator in the political game. The proposals which "The Economist" proposes do not always align with any specific political or interest group, but they are almost universally (monetarily or fiscally) activist.

entangld 13y ago
Who can guarantee objectivity? No one. That doesn't mean it is not possible to pursue it or even gain a good measure of it. Do you really believe it makes the Economist look partisan to support Democrats since 2004? What about before that? From 1996 - 2012 it was Dole, Bush, Kerry, Obama, Obama. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/us-presidential-endorsements http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/us... Isn't it possible to support certain ideals no matter which party they come from? The fact that their proposals do not always align with specific interest groups supports a claim of impartiality.
- nickff 13y ago
  I agree with you that it is difficult, and perhaps impossible to measure or achieve objectivity, but that is what they claim to have already done. In addition, it is somewhat absurd to pretend that a magazine takes a position, when it is really the editorial board that makes all the decisions. If one wants to examine any potential biases, one should examine the record of each editor or columnist, not the entire 100+ year history of a collection of their works. I also agree with you that they may not have any source-based bias, but their claims are much broader: >The Economist has no permanent address on the left-right scale.
cabalamat 13y ago
> does not help them look like an impartial spectator in the political game Then it is just as well they don't claim to be an impartial spectator.
VintageCool 13y ago
The Economist's endorsement of Obama in 2012 was pretty narrow. I think they switched twice over the course of the summer, and the final endorsement basically amounted to "we don't like Obama's policies, but we distrust Romney". I rather liked their "True Progressivism" issue last year. Overview: http://www.economist.com/node/21564556 http://www.economist.com/node/21564556 Inequality in America: http://www.economist.com/node/21564418 http://www.economist.com/node/21564418

by nickff 13y ago

entangld 13y ago

Who can guarantee objectivity? No one. That doesn't mean it is not possible to pursue it or even gain a good measure of it. Do you really believe it makes the Economist look partisan to support Democrats since 2004? What about before that? From 1996 - 2012 it was Dole, Bush, Kerry, Obama, Obama. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/us-presidential-endorsements http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/us... Isn't it possible to support certain ideals no matter which party they come from? The fact that their proposals do not always align with specific interest groups supports a claim of impartiality.

nickff 13y ago
I agree with you that it is difficult, and perhaps impossible to measure or achieve objectivity, but that is what they claim to have already done. In addition, it is somewhat absurd to pretend that a magazine takes a position, when it is really the editorial board that makes all the decisions. If one wants to examine any potential biases, one should examine the record of each editor or columnist, not the entire 100+ year history of a collection of their works. I also agree with you that they may not have any source-based bias, but their claims are much broader: >The Economist has no permanent address on the left-right scale.

cabalamat 13y ago

> does not help them look like an impartial spectator in the political game Then it is just as well they don't claim to be an impartial spectator.

VintageCool 13y ago

The Economist's endorsement of Obama in 2012 was pretty narrow. I think they switched twice over the course of the summer, and the final endorsement basically amounted to "we don't like Obama's policies, but we distrust Romney". I rather liked their "True Progressivism" issue last year. Overview: http://www.economist.com/node/21564556 http://www.economist.com/node/21564556 Inequality in America: http://www.economist.com/node/21564418 http://www.economist.com/node/21564418