3 ms·

This is a cool article to show anyone who argues The Economist doesn't have biases. Yes the article isn't clearly supporting a political party, but it certainly

This is a cool article to show anyone who argues The Economist doesn't have biases. Yes the article isn't clearly supporting a political party, but it certainly is pushing an agenda. I think it's also an interesting example of whats possible when authors don't need to have a byline.

maxxxxx 12y ago
What agenda is it pushing?
- Dudelander 12y ago
  It's an op ed for economic deregulation and tort reform, as opposed to a journalistic article. Which is not to say that op-eds don't belong in journalistic publications.
  - waqf 12y ago
    Is having an opinion the same as having a bias?
    - hnnewguy 12y ago
      When that opinion is different from your own, apparently it's "bias". Judging the agenda of a (very good, imho) publication (as if it could have one) based on an op-ed is ridiculous. Where is the critical thought? The Economist has been around for 150 years, and if you felt like it you could find individual articles that would indicate any such "bias" you desired. Oh well.
  - jerf 12y ago
    I'm at a loss as to how you can read that article as calling for deregulation, short of assuming that if it's from the Economist it can simply be assumed to be calling for those things. I see an article calling for existing regulations to be enforced openly and transparently, rather than criticizing any particular regulation. Honestly, this sounds like something liberals ought to be lining up behind, not all standing around kicking dirt because they don't like who said it. In fact pretty much everyone who isn't in the government ought to asking for this. Or is everyone else here really arguing that unknown accusations being settled behind closed doors for often poorly- or un-disclosed amounts of money between the government and big corporations is just peachy keen? Honestly the tone of the most of the replies being made here sort of boggle my mind.
gaius 12y ago
Then it is kinda on you to rebut points like "Why a state government should get any share at all of a French firm’s fine for defying the federal government’s foreign policy is not clear" because, well, it really isn't clear.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
ghaff 12y ago
What's the significance of having or not having a byline? This isn't an anonymous comment on the Internet someplace. It's a piece run by a well-respected magazine (whether or not you agree with their general worldview) that had to pass muster with editors.
stevoski 12y ago
> "when authors don't need to have a byline." Actually in general writers at The Economist are not _allowed_ to have a byline.
oatmeal_coffee 12y ago
How can anyone argue they don't have biases? From a 2013 article they ran explaining their politics: "We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy. So is the newspaper right-wing or left-wing? Neither, is the answer. . . it opposes all undue curtailment of an individual’s economic or personal freedom. But like its founders, it is not dogmatic. Where there is a liberal case for government to do something, The Economist will air it. Early in its life, its writers were keen supporters of the income tax, for example. Since then it has backed causes like universal health care and gun control. But its starting point is that government should only remove power and wealth from individuals when it has an excellent reason to do so." http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-0 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/ec...

maxxxxx 12y ago

What agenda is it pushing?

Dudelander 12y ago
It's an op ed for economic deregulation and tort reform, as opposed to a journalistic article. Which is not to say that op-eds don't belong in journalistic publications.
- waqf 12y ago
  Is having an opinion the same as having a bias?
  - hnnewguy 12y ago
    When that opinion is different from your own, apparently it's "bias". Judging the agenda of a (very good, imho) publication (as if it could have one) based on an op-ed is ridiculous. Where is the critical thought? The Economist has been around for 150 years, and if you felt like it you could find individual articles that would indicate any such "bias" you desired. Oh well.
- jerf 12y ago
  I'm at a loss as to how you can read that article as calling for deregulation, short of assuming that if it's from the Economist it can simply be assumed to be calling for those things. I see an article calling for existing regulations to be enforced openly and transparently, rather than criticizing any particular regulation. Honestly, this sounds like something liberals ought to be lining up behind, not all standing around kicking dirt because they don't like who said it. In fact pretty much everyone who isn't in the government ought to asking for this. Or is everyone else here really arguing that unknown accusations being settled behind closed doors for often poorly- or un-disclosed amounts of money between the government and big corporations is just peachy keen? Honestly the tone of the most of the replies being made here sort of boggle my mind.

gaius 12y ago

Then it is kinda on you to rebut points like "Why a state government should get any share at all of a French firm’s fine for defying the federal government’s foreign policy is not clear" because, well, it really isn't clear.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

ghaff 12y ago

What's the significance of having or not having a byline? This isn't an anonymous comment on the Internet someplace. It's a piece run by a well-respected magazine (whether or not you agree with their general worldview) that had to pass muster with editors.

stevoski 12y ago

> "when authors don't need to have a byline." Actually in general writers at The Economist are not _allowed_ to have a byline.

oatmeal_coffee 12y ago

How can anyone argue they don't have biases? From a 2013 article they ran explaining their politics: "We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy. So is the newspaper right-wing or left-wing? Neither, is the answer. . . it opposes all undue curtailment of an individual’s economic or personal freedom. But like its founders, it is not dogmatic. Where there is a liberal case for government to do something, The Economist will air it. Early in its life, its writers were keen supporters of the income tax, for example. Since then it has backed causes like universal health care and gun control. But its starting point is that government should only remove power and wealth from individuals when it has an excellent reason to do so." http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-0 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/ec...