The Economist (1843- ) is a weekly English language news magazine that comes out of London on Friday. It seems to be written for British businessmen with overseas interests. It has one million readers, half of them in America. Bill Gates reads it cover to cover every week. It is sold all over the world.
It is noted for its good writing, serious reporting and strong point of view.
It did not become a mass-market magazine till the late 1900s. It has been more successful in America than anyone expected.
Why I like it:
- I like its writing style, even if it is more university-level than necessary.
- It covers news from the whole world - not just the parts that directly affect American foreign policy.
- I know where it stands – so it is much easier to separate fact from opinion. When I started reading it I was a Marxist and wanted something counter to my point of view.
- Its point of view is not American.
- It is serious about understanding the world. It reports the news but also wants to know what is going on behind the news.
Currently in 2006 the free part of its website is pretty useless, but the paid part is one of the best news sites on the Internet. Especially good is the way it ties news stories into backgrounders.
Its point of view:
The Economist calls itself liberal – not in the American sense of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton, but in the British sense of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. Pretty much what Americans would call libertarian.
It sees all men as born equal, each acting according to reason and self-interest. There is such a thing as human nature, of people acting out of love or honour, but nine times out of ten it comes down to self-interest, to money. While this makes it less racist than most Anglo news outlets, it still falls for stereotypes, like Broken Africa and black pathologies.
Since people are reasonable and can make their own decisions, government should allow people (and businesses) as much freedom as possible. It will be better for everyone in the end. Greed is good. Government should only limit freedom for the sake of public order and safety.
Therefore The Economist is for democracy, capitalism, globalism and free trade - and against communism, socialism and Islamism. It is much bigger on green issues than the American press. It would weaken laws against drugs and prostitution and get rid of the Queen. While not neocon, it is soft on American imperialism for the sake of free trade.
Science offers a perfectly good account of the world – no gods need apply.
Religion can make believers a bit mad. Like love and honour, it is one of those things The Economist does not understand.
Blind spots: It depends too much on governments, companies and think tanks for news. So much so, for example, that the 1989 Chinese democracy movement in Tiananmen Square took it by surprise.
See also:
- some favoured stereotypes: black pathology, Broken Africa
- political left and right
- The Economist: the good, the bad and the ugly
I’m a big fan of the Economist, as well. Why am I not surprised that you read it? LOL!
The best part about the Economist is the ENGLISH. It’s the last, great bastion of the English language. Here’s a short excerpt from March 21st’s edition to prove my point:
“Even as America’s politicians harangue the bankers, the bankers are sniping back. On March 13th the chairman of Wells Fargo, America’s fourth-biggest bank, called the Treasury’s ongoing stress test for banks, with it’s glacial timetable, “asinine”. Amid the ranting, the rot from bad debts is creeping up banks’ capital structures, imperiling any recovery.”
Doesn’t it make your heart sing to read that? I wish the Washington Post wasn’t so dumbed-down, although it does have some well-written editorials and contributions.
The Economist is the biggest crock of shit.
I like its writing too, but I quit reading it long ago when I realized that its editors and implied readers don’t give a crap about ordinary people. There’s also little recognition that “free market” is code-speak for letting the rich get richer, all while abusing others more and more. I’m really surprised its economic elitism, which includes de facto racism, doesn’t bother you, Abagond.
I read it in part because its political views are so clear-cut to me and run counter to my own. As I said in the post: “I know where it stands – so it is much easier to separate fact from opinion.”
I love the Economist. The first commenter is spot on about the magazine’s diction. I also love how they they aren’t so Amero-centric with stories that cover the entire world, not to mention that it is great source for Econ facts.
Though, I’m surprised to see that you didn’t mention how racist that newspaper can be at times. Some of the journalist attempt to hide their bias by using code-words like “the West”(read:White people countries), but the Economist has to be one of the most blatantly racist papers I have ever read. Just look up any article on any country in Africa, ESPECIALLY South Africa or Zimbabwe, and you will see what I mean.
Cynic,
Can you give an example of the racism you mention? Given their editorial stance on such issues as universal rights and the encouragement of mass immigration, I’ve always seen them as being race-agnostic.
@ The Cynic:
Tell me a top English-language news source that is NOT racist.
@Abagond
None of them. I believe that I have stated on this website(don’t remember which post) that I find the news media to be extremely racist, albeit in the most implicit way. I just believe the Economist is the markedly worse than most other sources.
@Randy
I would, but I don’t feel like sifting through articles and quotes at the moment. Also, you should keep in mind that what one person finds racist another might find neutral. We’re all biased to some extent, so it shouldn’t be surprising if we disagree on what is considered “racist”(especially since the news often attempts to make their racist speech as ambiguous as possible). If you haven’t seen any racism in the Economist mag then me giving examples probably wont help. Just be on the look out for articles that may have a racist/white biased(that’ll prolly be a difficult task 4 u) slant.
Cynic,
I recognize that interpreting racist intent is a subjective exercise, but I’d be curious to know if there were any broad aspects of The Economist which jumped out at you as being biased.
I updated this post a bit to say something about the The Economist’s racism, but it needs a post of its own.