Hacker News Reader

Comment by Epa095 | Hacker News Reader

This is one of those articles which kind of pretends to be neutral, but are still so oppinionated that I don't know if I ended up smarter or dumber after reading it :-/

View on HN

Where exactly did it pretend to be neutral? This IS The Economist, after all.

I'm really unimpressed at the economist for publishing this, which is lazy partisan flame bait that I've flagged.

The Economist is great when you want to read stridently neoconservative propaganda masquerading as neutral, high-minded thinkpieces.

I try to mention this every time I notice any major publications (WSJ, WaPo, NYT, Economist, Bloomberg, HBR) post basically trash under their main, but especially their "Opinion" channels.

I think they're trying to reckon with their ads business model not succeeding in the online world, so their editors allow these controversial pieces to exist as a means to retain viewership by appealing to some mob anger.

I also want to mention that of all the news agencies, I have consistently not felt this way from anything from the Atlantic, which is the only publication I now subscribe to, because this work is kind of nonsensical.

As someone who is very slow to adapt to new language and social trends, I came away disappointed. I was hoping for more explanation of how ideas travel from a small group to the mainstream, but the only explanations given seemed aimed at delegitimizing the ideas themselves. Flame bait is perhaps a little strong but lazy and partisan I agree with.

I agree. The author obviously considers "wokeness" stupid as hell, but hides with the thinnest veneer of neutrality.

By the same logic, a far-right person could complain about a "veneer of neutrality" in the mainstream press's coverage of, say, the Proud Boys. But that would be ridiculous.

Some things really are objectively stupid as hell.

I have no opinion on the Proud Boys because I have no access to untainted information on them. But in general you should strongly distrust news orgs talking about anything with political or culture war implications. Every single case I've had personal experience with has had massively misleading coverage.

Gell-Mann Amnesia.

Your sentiment reminds me of this part from the article:

>'One prominent journalist argued for replacing “neutral objectivity” with “moral clarity”—making unflinching distinctions between right and wrong.'

This piece is certainly not an example of "neutral objectivity".

There is more to the article besides ad-hominem attacks on the author.

It's a distraction piece:

Is the important issue in the US the enraged far right mob that attacked the Capitol in January, and continues to deny the legitimacy of elections, and plans further violence? Is it the actual COVID pandemic? Is it the science denial that accompanies the pandemic and has people turning to unproven horse-dewormer over proven vaccines? Is it the disinformation engines on social media and their weaponization by global actors? Is it the looming climate catastrophe? Is it right-wing lawmakers attempts to remove women's rights over their own bodies, and limit the right to vote and thereby "manage" democracy?

No, we need to pay our attention to lefty-wokies instead! They're the enemy of the day! Ignore your lying eyes about where these issues are coming from, pretend that there's an issue on the left here instead!

It's a pathetic piece.

And its pathetic that it gets so much traction here.

You're attacking a straw man of your own invention here. The Economist has devoted pages and pages to the Capitol attack, the COVID pandemic, climate change, social media, abortion rights etc.

I find it kind of sad that the US is so polarized that everything (like the Economist) that doesn't fit neatly into Democrat/left vs Republican/right is nonetheless forcibly pigeonholed into one of the two camps, with absurd results like you labeling the Economist -- historically a very liberal/libertarian publication -- some kind of right wing Trojan horse.

I have read the Economist many times, although not in the last 5 years. And I would not call it "liberal" at all. I stopped because of the bias.

Did the other topics that the Economist "devoted pages and pages to" get as much uptake here as this one?

I think they're pretty neutral. Perhaps your own stance has shifted away from the center instead? Something to consider.

I disagree, I stopped because of things that the Economist really were not neutral about, entire arguments that they omitted, things that they decided to paint as one-sided, which were in reality anything but.

Maybe you think they're neutral because they confirm your existing biases? Something to consider.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com