The Economist cover from April 16th 2005.
The Economist (1843- ) is a White British news magazine well to the right that comes out of London on Friday. In 2013 it had 1.55 million readers. Only 14% live in Britain. Over half live in North America.
It was founded in 1843 by a Scottish hat maker to oppose the Corn Laws. It championed free trade then and it still does now.
I like its:
- Writing style, even if it requires a university reading level.
- Strong opinion that is counter to mine, making it easier to separate fact from opinion.
- Coverage of world news. It does not just cover the parts that directly affect US foreign policy.
- Seriousness in trying to understand the world.
Website: In 2006, its free part was useless, but the paid part was one of the best news websites out there. Especially good was the way it tied news stories into backgrounders.
Viewpoint:
The Economist calls itself liberal – not in the American sense of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton, but the British sense of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, what Americans would call neo-liberal or libertarian. It has been called Thatcherite, which is not way off.
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 English-language news outlets, it is still wilfully blind to racism and pushes 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. Equality is inefficient. Government should only limit freedom for the sake of public order and safety.
The Economist has
- Supported: free trade, free markets, capitalism, internationalism, decolonization, the US war in Vietnam, Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, gun control, gay marriage.
- Opposed: Corn Laws, capital punishment, communism, Islamism, Hugo Chavez.
It is bigger on green issues than the US press. It is weak on international law, especially as applied to the US and Israel.
Eurocentrism: Although it seems to cover the world, it is largely by and for the 18% that live in North America and Europe. That is where 88% of its readers live and what 50% of its pages of political news are about. It has 29 staff reporters all over the world – yet 97% of them are White (in 2015).
The average reader is an upper-middle-class, middle-aged White man from North America.
To read The Economist in a somewhat demographically balanced way, read the following number of articles from each section (as of 2020):
- 1 US
- 1 Americas
- 6 Asia (3 from India)
- 3 China
- 3 Middle East and Africa (2 from Africa)
- 1 Europe / UK
Blind spots: It depends too much on governments, companies and think tanks for news.
Censorship: It has been banned or censored at times by India, Singapore, Iran and the Missouri Department of Corrections.
– Abagond, 2006, 2021.
See also:
- The Economist: the good, the bad and the ugly
- The Economist: audience demographics
- The Economist: Media directory – find out who writes for The Economist.
- posts on The Economist:
- The press
- Margaret Thatcher
- Hugo Chavez
- Islamism
- Tropes and stereotypes:
- Terms it uses:
- Kool-Aid:
- it drinks Israel’s
- but not Sarah Palin’s Kool-Aid
- The propaganda model
- reading level
- Could Shakespeare read our English? – not The Economist’s
619
Abagond 
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.
LikeLike
The Economist is the biggest crock of shit.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
@ The Cynic:
Tell me a top English-language news source that is NOT racist.
LikeLike
@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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I updated this post a bit to say something about the The Economist’s racism, but it needs a post of its own.
LikeLike
[…] The Economist […]
LikeLike
It is serious about understanding the world. It reports the news but also wants to know what is going on behind the news.
I used to read it voraciously. I feel your claim is partly true; The Economist was a sickening cheerleader for so-called Globalization in the 90’s.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I like its writing style, even if it is more university-level than necessary.
No, what you call “the university-level” style is a good thing. The issues under discussion in that magazine are innately contentious, therefore The Economist’s take on an issue ought to be presented in language that is precise.
What you criticize as too formal in your post on academics’ English usage , I see as them speaking in as clear a manner as possible because the subject matter demands such clarity. There is, too, the issue of over intellectualizing one’s speech to the point of revolting pretentiousness, which I brought up in my final comment in the Prose thread. But just using precise language or “university language” doesn’t necessarily get one to the pretentious level, I think you know it when you see it.
The other thread I’m speaking about:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/american-academic-prose/#comments
LikeLike
@ Legion
I love The Economist’s prose. It is way better than that of Chomsky or almost any other American professor. I would not count it as academic prose. By university-level I mean you pretty much need a university education to read it easily. For much of what it talks about, that seems to be overkill. But you could be right. Maybe as an exercise I should try to rewrite a paragraph (or article) like I did with Chomsky (and the Bible and an old letter of mine).
LikeLike