Discussion summary
A discussion about The Economist's perceived bias and accuracy, sparked by a controversial cover and differing opinions on their journalism quality.
What the discussion says
- Some users criticize The Economist for bias, especially regarding 'both sides' coverage.
- Others defend the publication, citing its global reporting quality.
- Concerns about coverage on transgender topics and political bias are mentioned.
“After subscribing for 15 years, I noped out after their 'walker' cover.”
“Seeing the phrase 'both sides' used pejoratively is a red flag.”
Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Prior discussion 70+ comments (2 days ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48791799by andsoitis
- They're wrong more often than random chance, yes.
- I read the Economist for over a decade growing up. It was a great way to learn about the world, who was in power where, and the challenges facing economies at the time. I found their exposition to be pretty good given the fact they were restricted to a few pages for important events. However, their proposed solutions were always the same. More market freedom, etc.
I did feel with the change in editorial direction a while back that they lost some of their edge. I've since mostly just stuck to the Financial Times. It feels less worldly, but the content of the articles feels better.
by ImageXav - Repost of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48791799 (with 63 comments)by latch
- The tricky thing about predictions made by public entity or persona is that, the fact that they are making public predictions creates a major influence on the outcome itself. People react to predictions made by them.by claw-el
- They're wrong and right in equal measure, but what they do is publish their opinions with conviction and back it up with sound arguments and facts. I remember reading articles they published in the late 80s about their belief that Japans economic boom was about to end, but they were also one of the biggest backers of Bush's invasion of Iraq which they were disastrously wrong about. I haven't read it for a while so I don't know what they're like now but for forward economic intelligence they were always one of the best.by drumhead
- I'd love to know if "the pink" has the same problem because I used to find the editorial very good. As a non-investor, left leaning voter, it interested me that I found much to agree with in "the financial times" while still finding much to disagree with in "the times" and "the daily telegraph" and "the spectator" -as if money was more neutrally stanced on left-vs-right.by ggm
- After reading their newspaper (their label, not mine) for years, I've come away with three revelations: A) More than gaining insight and staying abreast of events, what I was really purchasing was the /feeling/ of being in-the-know. B) Whenever I met with "certain" people, they were likely to also read The Economist which turned out to be another, tremendously handy means of anchoring conversation. C) The trade balance tables on the inside back page were always interesting, sometimes jaw-dropping.