The Economist on Thursday published a scathing editorial criticizing Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on virtually all of the United States' trade partners.
The Economist’s journalism is some of the best anywhere, and clearly declares its bias when it’s relevant to do so. It has to be that way because its readers make investment decisions based on its coverage, like its sister paper the Financial Times.
Its opinions section, on the other hand, can be odious, and they sometimes lean towards the Tories even when the Tories have policies in direct opposition towards the Economist’s declared principles. There’s a direct pipeline from writing for the Economist and being selected as a Tory MP. I think that’s what you’re reacting to.
Having said that, I wouldn’t characterize even their leader writers as neoliberal. They have robustly criticized the Chicago School’s many shortcomings and have ridiculed the Austrians (the economic cult, not the nationality).
I think of them similarly to Al-Jazeera: their coverage is often good, but not in areas of interest to the Qatari rulers. The same with the Economist-- its foreign coverage can be excellent (considering their point of view) but they are too ensnared in UK politics to show the same objectivity. The quality of their US correspondents is also quite variable.
And I don’t see anything in their criticism of Trump’s idiocy that is incorrect, though I’d go farther and note that his probable motivation is economic sabotage of the US and its trading partners, because he is Putin’s stooge. There might be some Shock Doctrine smash-and-grab as a secondary goal.
It’s why I canceled. They have good news reporting but they personally view countries (notably the USA) as nothing but an economic engine. They don’t honestly care about the lives of the people who live there. Kind of like how they think the USA needs to cut “red tape” with DOGE but can’t specify what or precisely why. But it’s crickets on usable healthcare…
Same. I used to be an avid reader as a young adult but I couldn’t bear them anymore with how little they care about people.
It’s all money money money, not people.
It’s a shame Trump supporters won’t consume anything that doesn’t feed their confirmation bias.
To be fair, the economist is shit.
They cheer welfare cuts that are projected to put tens of thousands of children into poverty and complain about tiny tax increases on the rich.
The economist is the magazine of the upper class. They may be neo-liberal instead of straight up facist, but they are morally bankrupt.
The Economist’s journalism is some of the best anywhere, and clearly declares its bias when it’s relevant to do so. It has to be that way because its readers make investment decisions based on its coverage, like its sister paper the Financial Times.
Its opinions section, on the other hand, can be odious, and they sometimes lean towards the Tories even when the Tories have policies in direct opposition towards the Economist’s declared principles. There’s a direct pipeline from writing for the Economist and being selected as a Tory MP. I think that’s what you’re reacting to.
Having said that, I wouldn’t characterize even their leader writers as neoliberal. They have robustly criticized the Chicago School’s many shortcomings and have ridiculed the Austrians (the economic cult, not the nationality).
I think of them similarly to Al-Jazeera: their coverage is often good, but not in areas of interest to the Qatari rulers. The same with the Economist-- its foreign coverage can be excellent (considering their point of view) but they are too ensnared in UK politics to show the same objectivity. The quality of their US correspondents is also quite variable.
And I don’t see anything in their criticism of Trump’s idiocy that is incorrect, though I’d go farther and note that his probable motivation is economic sabotage of the US and its trading partners, because he is Putin’s stooge. There might be some Shock Doctrine smash-and-grab as a secondary goal.
It’s why I canceled. They have good news reporting but they personally view countries (notably the USA) as nothing but an economic engine. They don’t honestly care about the lives of the people who live there. Kind of like how they think the USA needs to cut “red tape” with DOGE but can’t specify what or precisely why. But it’s crickets on usable healthcare…
Same. I used to be an avid reader as a young adult but I couldn’t bear them anymore with how little they care about people. It’s all money money money, not people.
That’s a good point, I really can’t argue.
I dunno pretty sure they consume groceries
They’ve been told to stop talking about grocery prices.
For now