What's wrong with the Economist?

When I first started reading it regularly about 12 years ago, I was able to take its Tory views with a grain of salt, because, at least, it seemed to be fair. Or at least it tried to be fair. But I've found it increasingly more difficult to read in the last year--more difficult to distinguish from the standard American media whore organs. It's drum-banging for the war was bad enough, but its regular column on American politics, "Lexington," may as well be written by David Broder or George Will. Whoever writes that column has no distance on the American political scene.

Two positive things about the Economist: they have consistently argued against both the death penalty and torture, and have chastised the Bushists and Americans for practicing the first and tacitly encouraging the latter on terrorists. Why then, if they are able to take these humanitarian stands on principle, have they so consistently argued for the war, even when their original justification (which, surprise, was WMD) proved specious and they, like the Bushists were forced into grandfathering a "humanitarian" justification onto their arguments?

Mostly because of their "laissez faire will solve all ills" solution to every problem.

Bush is their guy and all the horrors of the Inferno cannot shake them from that. Unfortunately, one assumes there are reasonable and honest men of business somewhere who might realize sanity and SOME fairness is necessary fro business. Yet they cannot shake off their dependency on the current standard barrier and the benefits they derive from. Not just benefits but the absolute triumph of their monetary ideology which they sadly place over and above every other human and social value and concern- including scientific reality, basic intelligence and sanity.

While it is educating to see the pragmatic benefits of capitalism pushed to dysfunctional absurdity, it is despairing to note, that even for the survival of anything, themselves included, few are wavering from a facade of arrogant delusions backed up by sheer occupation of American power.

The odd blinks and critiques are all the more pathetic but are a more honest paradigm of corporate media as a whole.

It is the best mainstream news magazines out there, period.

I've been a subscriber for over ten years now, and wouldn't trade it for anything else. The fact that I lean Libertarian helps I suppose...

...The Ecomomist's take on the Democrat candidates for president is very far for being the best out there. It all looks to me far more like blatant propogandizing for Bush.

The recent description of Dean as "McGovern Extra-Strength does not hold up to very much scrutiny at all IMHO, especially if you take the time to visit Dean's website and discover his stance on this issues. If the Economist gave both sides a fair crack of the whip then maybe it might not be so bad. As is the Lexington columm just comes across as GOP propoganda.

I remember that one. It makes me wonder if they really looked at Dean's record at all. Of course, you could make the same observation of Dean here at DU. I was a bit put off by Dean at first, because of the rabid support he has here. After I looked at his record, I found I liked his stance on the issues, and I'm one of the most conservative people here. I've even thought of starting a thread titled: "Bad news DeanieBoppers, I like Dean"

You get that impression with quite a few people on the left. Mind you, Dean's centerism is not such a bad thing at all. I think that he looks like a very good candidate indeed but the candidate whom I most like the look of at the moment is Bob Graham of all people! I really like what he has to say about terrorism. One of the good things about the dem candidates is that there is more than one good candidate and one of the advantages of such a poplulous field is that there is candidates for a very wide range of views.

It's just a shame that The Economist is not IMHO taking the time to consider all this or to understand what is driving the Democrats at present.

I've subscribed for about seven months now, after reading their online site just about every week for the past four years. They are the source for international news. Of course they are libertarian (also why I like them). A magazine called The Economist couldn't be statist, could they?

they really supported gulf war I as well
the hyperrich make big bucks off war

If you read other ubercapitalist sites such as Mises.org and the Cato Institute, you will find them quite opposed to the war.

If they're Libertarian--or even just libertarian--then a presumptive war against Iraq (because of alleged WMDs) is unprincipled.

I just think the Economist is too libertarian on economics. I didn't oppose the war on Iraq either.

Pleased?

I opposed doing it unilaterally.

1. The good: comprehensive coverage of world trends. No American magazine covers so many areas of the world. It was incredibly valuable as a reference when I was doing a Japanese-English translation on the Asian currency crisis of 1997.

2. The bad: Believes that free trade is some sort of cure-all for everything that might ail a nation. Writes as if it believes that the U.S. and Britain have a natural right to punish other countries for whatever reason they see fit.

They are not American conservatives, however, so they have a more nuanced view of social issues than the Republicanites do.

I subscribed for two or three years, but then my subscription came up for renewal at a time when I was short of money. I felt that the $120 could be better applied to my grocery bill.

Give them a look. news.bbc.co.uk
Don't rely on a single source for news, however...

That's what I call it. The Apologist for Ken Lay and his ilk. It's not even fit for me to wipe my arse on because it's coated in plastic.

Your statements couldn't be further from the truth. The Economist has been just as damning of crony capitalism and law breakers as anybody else.

But before then, it was rah-rahing Enron and Worldcom as "visionaries of the marketplace" or some shit. It stopped only when continued support became embarassing. It is as bankrupt morally as Enron itself.

He came up with the notion of "Social Darwinism" that we so love today (it wasn't Darwin's idea.) He also came up with eugenics, and you know where that went...

There was an article maybe in the Guardian about the dramatic change in The Economists editorial slant when they're small publisher sold the magazine to a big publisher.

About 15 years ago, not many people had heard of the Economist, 'cause they were too small to advertise broadly. When you started hearing about them was the same time they were purchased by a huge company, and that was also when they changed.