Disclaimer: This is part serious, part tongue-in-cheek.
The Economist has a style guide online, but do not be fooled! They do not always follow it – and, besides, it leaves out tons of important stuff.
So here are the main things to keep in mind to write like The Economist:
1. Attend Oxford University. Cambridge, if you must.
2. Be White – like 97% of its correspondents. Or at least be near White, like the other 3%.
3. Be anonymous. You are allowed to call yourself “this correspondent” or “this reporter”.
4. Be Eurocentric. Westerners are 4.7 times more important than everyone else. The table of contents proves it! Everyone should be like the West. The US, Britain and Israel are the moral centre of the world, even when they break international law. Even when they slaughter civilians. Because they mean well.
5. Be racist – do not have “trembling racial sensibilities”. Be wilfully blind to racism! Say that slave owners were nice to their slaves – capitalism rocks! Use the Broken Africa stereotype, Black pathologies and Mock Spanish. Use the word “whitey”. Assume that everyone wants to be like White people. If someone does not want to wear blue jeans or date White women, there must be something wrong with them.
6. Use the four-and-a-half race model for the US: blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and, only when talking about the other races, whites.
7. Watch Hollywood films.
8. Article length: 450 to 1500 words.
9. Reading level: university.
10. Do not use an inverse pyramid style. Do not tell readers the most important facts first. Keep them guessing!
11. Headline: Use film titles, like “From Russia With Love”, “Face-Off”, or “As Good As It Gets”. They are so witty!
12. Think in terms of abstract nouns and weak verbs, not concrete actors and actions.
13. Use unnecessarily long sentences. This is a must.
14. Avoid single-line paragraphs. This is forbidden.
15. Overuse: chat up, bit, keen, loth, fret, row, sort, flog, sacked, ten years on, flog (again), put paid, one-off, knock-on effect, bizarrely, invariably and problem.
16. Do not use issue as a synonym for problem. Be precise. Use problem.
17. Use Briticisms: lorry, whinge, petrol, maths, quango, council estate, queue, come top, white goods, pushchair, fizzy drink, boffin, jam tomorrow. But do not overdo it – an article should have no more than two. Just to even it out, use the American spelling for aluminium.
18. Avoid slang, jargon, needless words and cricket metaphors. They are so good at this that I try to avoid baseball and basketball metaphors, like strike out and slam dunk.
19. Important terms:
- this newspaper – The Economist.
- terrorist – a non-state actor or regime that fights against Western interests.
- regime – a government that The Economist disapproves of, like those that go against against Western interests.
- Western interests – big banks and big companies owned by White people, like the ones most of The Economist’s readers work for.
- illegal immigrant – be reductive and imprecise!
- sub-Saharan Africa – because all Black people are alike.
- The dark continent – because it is still 1849.
- black-on-black crime – use when talking about police crime.
- white fathers – do not use.
- black fathers – use.
– Abagond, 2015.
See also:
- Whitespeak
- The Vast Talking Machine
- The Economist
- style guide – the one for this blog, partly based on The Economist’s authorized style guide.
- reading level
- tropes
- Terms
- What “world” history has taught me – not far different from what The Economist teaches.
586
FYI: between the lines…….through the lens.
Sent from my HTC
LikeLike
You was tweeting it off rt for 3 days now
LikeLike
The colonial perspective is precisely why I don’t read the Economist. It’s too depressing and disempowering. Reading the Time article on Walter Scott this week also left me feeling bad. Sites like this and PoC twitter are important for validating our reality and keeping ourselves strong to fight oppression.
I’m surprised the Economist actually mentions Native Americans. Many newspaper articles still discuss race in the U.S. through the black-white binary or as if “white,” “Black,” and “Asian” are the only “races” in the U.S.
LikeLike
A question: i fit is wrong to say “Sub-Saharan Africa,” then how should we call it? I was thinking of “Tafkassa”(The Area Formally Known As Sub-Saharan Africa), but I guess that will not work.
LikeLike
Ah, wait, here it is: http://alphadesigner.com/art-store/africa-according-to-usa-print/
LikeLike
@ Jeff If I understand Abagond correctly his criticism of the term “sub-saharan africa” goes beyond the actual word.
LikeLike
This is interesting and most of these nuances probably apply to the writing styles of publications beyond the Economist, which I don’t read. I do read the WSJ, which is obviously not the same kind of publication, but I’ll pay closer attention today.
@Jeff Elberfeld
My main problem with the USE of the term “Sub-Saharan Africa” is that it’s intentionally used in the media to racially divide the continent AS IF the Sahara is a racial dividing line. In fact, millions of people live in the Sahara desert–native, dark-skinned Africans, that is–as they have for thousands and thousands of years, and such people also live north of the Sahara.
LikeLike
I still say that MAD magazine has got these highfalutin clowns beat!
LikeLike
I am so glad I found this blog. The economist is indeed a Euro-centric, White Elitist magazine. I am an African and I detest the way they keep referring to Africa as “The Dark Continent”. I believe they use this phrase deliberately and they indeed have an agenda. I abhor the British leadership and their fake monarchy.
LikeLike
So, the Economist is just like every other self important western rag…Eurocentric to a fault and not very informative.
LikeLike
I feel the same way about “Vogue”.
LikeLike
@lordofmirkwood That queen you think so highly of was dead silent when British troops were slaughtering Africans in my country like chicken. The monarchy is fake because it does not have any real power. It is there to maintain the elite ideology where some people are more important than others. Like every other fake monarchy its days are numbered..and hey do not call me a troll you don’t know me.
LikeLike
@ lordofmirkwood
villagewriter was referring to the limited and ceremonial status of the Monarchy in Britain. How exactly is that acknowledgement in any way speaking badly of an elderly woman?
LikeLike
@ lordofmirkwood
Well not to speak for him, of course, but he seemed to mention an abhorrence of the “British leadership” and the “fake monarchy.” But it doesn’t look like he called out the “Old Lady” personally.
LikeLike
brilliant and accurate.
LikeLike
@ villagewriter
Right, like they still live in the 1890s or something. I am adding it to the post. Thanks!
LikeLike
“Use film titles, like ‘From Russia With Love’, ‘Face-Off’, or ‘As Good As It Gets’. They are so witty!”
LOL!
I’m appalled that they’re still referring to Africa as “the Dark Continent”. Even Fox News (and possibly Breitbart?) would know better than to do that.
LikeLike