The Economist is quickly losing that reputation. I cancelled my subscription. The FT is still pretty good, though they shy away from anything critical of powerful corporations/individuals.
Biases are inescapable, but there is no need to be fatalist about it.
To rip off a pg-ism, they are intentional moderates. Intentional moderates are boring.
Good journalism and opinion writing isn't boring, it's absolutely fascinating, and that's something I find The Economist lacks.
Why would you want that? Amateurs adding a personal spin on topics they don't understand is bad news. Reading that will just make you more misinformed.
I'm not asking for amateurs throwing in their two cents, I'm asking for actual journalists to do their job and speak truth to power.
As an example here is the type of story I want to see more of https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/sta...
> For decades, methadone — a synthetic opioid developed in the 1930s by a German company — was associated not with pain relief but with weaning addicts off heroin and other drugs. The word summoned an image of clinics, often in seedy parts of town.
I mean that's what I know methadon from. Always has been and still is.
And I also know that it's not like a "safe" replacement for heroin to kick yourself off. It's absolute shit. But it helps with the heroin withdrawal, which is absolutely worse.
(not that I have any experience with heroin addiction, but I know some people that work at these addict care centres, that distribute methadon (not sure how this works though))
> A case from 2009 epitomizes this divide. Two sisters, injured in a car accident in South King County, needed pain relief. One, with private insurance, received OxyContin, an expensive drug. The other, on Medicaid, received methadone — and within a week, overdosed and died.
but OxyContin is also shit.
for very different reasons than methadone, that I won't go into here right now.
but fact of the matter is that neither are commonly prescribed as pain killer meds, outside the US.
our politicians actually want less people to be on oxycodon (the generic) because it's terribly addictive, and campaign against it.
In case anyone is wondering -https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
In 2015, the publishing house Pearson sold their majority stake to a bunch of globalists: the Agnelli family, the Rotschilds, Cadbury, etc.[1]
I was not aware of this at the time, but noticed the change of direction a year or so later. Cancelled my subscription - sadly there are few real journalists left.
Also, I'm not sure if it was intentional or not - but using the word "Globalists" as a pejorative for the Rothschilds is a very common anti-semitic tactic.
Neoliberal has a clear definition. "Top 1% of the 1%" has a clear meaning. "Globalist" does not. "Globalism" isn't an ideology so far so I understand it.
For that reason I understand it to be a word that signals something about the writer more so than it describes something about the subject. But I could be overfitting this curve.
And attempting to sprinkle anti-semitism into it is just a (typical) attempt to make the word "globalist" socially unacceptable. Nothing to do with Jews, but hey, nice try.
Though generally I just refer to these people as Reptilians.
There’s been no change in editorial control or voice in the paper. It’s all you.