The Economist needs input.

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
#21
advised against Brexit on economic grounds.
I happened to know the European editor of a few years ago. He was as pro EU as it is possible to be, and that was the line then. The summer after the vote one could reduce him to apoplexy by simply muttering UKIP, Out, Adieu.
 
#23
I'll admit to being a subscriber. You get what you pay for - generally high quality reporting, not particularly biased to anything other than "backed up by evidence". Proper journalism and decent-sized articles, not limited to a few column inches. Not perfect, but pretty damn good.

The Economist's agenda is to be well-informed, and not beholden to an owner's whims (see: swivel-eyed non-domiciled inherited multi-millionaires who want to avoid any pan-EU tax agreements, and who rather like the thought of politicians desperate for their support come the General Election).

So: Pro NATO, pro-US-anti-Trump, advised against Brexit on economic grounds. The left will call it the organ of capitalist lackeys, the right will call it a bunch of snowflakes who can't see that Brexit will be a success, honest, because we say so.
It's unquestionably left leaning, and has been wrong on pretty much everything related to Brexit thus far. It's interesting for economic history, and in providing context, but not a great deal more.

It's most famous for its consistancy of writing style, which is uniquely "Economist".
 
#24
I'll admit to being a subscriber. You get what you pay for - generally high quality reporting, not particularly biased to anything other than "backed up by evidence". Proper journalism and decent-sized articles, not limited to a few column inches. Not perfect, but pretty damn good.

The Economist's agenda is to be well-informed, and not beholden to an owner's whims (see: swivel-eyed non-domiciled inherited multi-millionaires who want to avoid any pan-EU tax agreements, and who rather like the thought of politicians desperate for their support come the General Election).

So: Pro NATO, pro-US-anti-Trump, advised against Brexit on economic grounds. The left will call it the organ of capitalist lackeys, the right will call it a bunch of snowflakes who can't see that Brexit will be a success, honest, because we say so.
It's unquestionably left leaning, and has been wrong on pretty much everything related to Brexit thus far. It's interesting for economic history, and in providing context, but not a great deal more.

It's most famous for its consistancy of writing style, which is uniquely "Economist".
The Economist is "left leaning"? I'd like to hear your positions on "centrist" and "right leaning"...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#26
If you think The Economist is rubbish, I invite you to read most Middle East news media.

Reading The Economist together with The Week probably gives you a better grasp of events than The Sheikh/President/Supreme Leader's* Daily Briefing that the local Mukhbarat spend so much time preparing.

*Except probably the Iranians, I would think they are quite well informed. They'd have to be with the Al Quds spread out all over the MENA.
 
#27
It's unquestionably left leaning, and has been wrong on pretty much everything related to Brexit thus far. It's interesting for economic history, and in providing context, but not a great deal more.
That's an interesting position... I'm curious as to why you say "left leaning", and "wrong on pretty much everything", and would be interested to hear your explanation. Have you any alternative recommendations for current affairs journalism that is "centred" and "not wrong on everything related to Brexit"?

You shouldn't be surprised that when you start a statement with "it's unquestionably..." (when it's obviously going to be questioned), it makes it look to me as if you know it's dodgy logic but you want us to skip on to your next assertion.
 
#28
Anyhoo, what would a STAB Loggie/Mover know about soldiering?
;)Careful there - surely you've heard the old adage that "on a clear day, an infantryman can see as far as Regimental HQ"? ;)

It's right up there with "how many infantry COs does it take to change a light bulb? Just one - he holds the bulb and lets the universe revolve around him...."
 
#29
I'd apply, but I rather suspect they couldnt afford me (and that's not saying much!)
 
#32
I don't think the Economist could cope with that much printing of google paperwork, or the extra cost of printing in italics ad nauseum whilst going on about this one time in Oman...

Besides isn't he allegedly in mourning over the news today that a couple of his 'friends' have been told they won't be allowed out to play for quite a long time? Allegedly...
 
#33
That's an interesting position... I'm curious as to why you say "left leaning", and "wrong on pretty much everything", and would be interested to hear your explanation. Have you any alternative recommendations for current affairs journalism that is "centred" and "not wrong on everything related to Brexit"?

You shouldn't be surprised that when you start a statement with "it's unquestionably..." (when it's obviously going to be questioned), it makes it look to me as if you know it's dodgy logic but you want us to skip on to your next assertion.
No deep analyisis on my part, more an informed observation. I have been involved in quite a few deals that the E has covered, including one on its front page. Their reporting was deeply innacurate, and plain silly in some respects. Floored analysis, floored conclusion.

On Brexit, the E held a simiar line to HMT, "project fear" for want of better expression. To date, their forecasts have been wrong. They appear to overemphasise the "economic efficiency" arguments, whilst downplaying the "cultural" arguments.....which is to emphasise the "neo-classical" over the "welfare" paradigm. Poor form from a newspaper that, generally, does well wrt economic history.
 
#34
No deep analyisis on my part, more an informed observation. I have been involved in quite a few deals that the E has covered, including one on its front page. Their reporting was deeply innacurate, and plain silly in some respects. Floored analysis, floored conclusion.

On Brexit, the E held a simiar line to HMT, "project fear" for want of better expression. To date, their forecasts have been wrong. They appear to overemphasise the "economic efficiency" arguments, whilst downplaying the "cultural" arguments.....which is to emphasise the "neo-classical" over the "welfare" paradigm. Poor form from a newspaper that, generally, does well wrt economic history.

Did you mean 'flawed'?
 
#35
No deep analyisis on my part, more an informed observation. I have been involved in quite a few deals that the E has covered, including one on its front page. Their reporting was deeply innacurate, and plain silly in some respects. Floored analysis, floored conclusion.
As @Brotherton Lad has pointed out, mistakes are easy and perfection is hard. Picking on one example and using it as justification to invalidate the whole is a common activity when deeper beliefs are challenged.

I've seen articles in Private Eye and the Economist where my personal experience allowed me to say "hold on, that's wrong" - but much more where I went "well, that's the best description I've seen in a while"... By way of example, consider Mark Urban - he's nailed it in several books, but @The_Duke has pointed out errors in one of them. Those few mistakes don't invalidate the whole.
 
#36
As @Brotherton Lad has pointed out, mistakes are easy and perfection is hard. Picking on one example and using it as justification to invalidate the whole is a common activity when deeper beliefs are challenged.

I've seen articles in Private Eye and the Economist where my personal experience allowed me to say "hold on, that's wrong" - but much more where I went "well, that's the best description I've seen in a while"... By way of example, consider Mark Urban - he's nailed it in several books, but @The_Duke has pointed out errors in one of them. Those few mistakes don't invalidate the whole.

He also got analysis wrong.
 
#37
Auld Yin's 'defence writing' consists solely of parroting 'that's what I call a bite', 'fixed that for you', pro-Brexit pish and infantry coy reminiscences from 30-odd years ago.

I haven't read Jim's blog so have not yet formed an opinion.
We’re the Sweeney and we haven’t had our dinner.
 
#39
Send 'em my way if they're really stuck. I like the Economist and I know a few movers and shakers, though they're all getting a bit long in the tooth.
 

Similar threads

Top