What narrative manipulation have you seen from The Economist? I haven’t noticed it so perhaps I am being manipulated! I’d love to hear your insight!
Knowing that informs you about the selection of topics they cover and the angles they will take. It doesn't make it bad - I read it for years although gave up mid-2010s - but it can be quite predictable. It's still capable of producing very high quality and thoughtful writing, which makes it more annoying when they choose not to.
Recommendation: maybe the FT?
I haven’t noticed a change other than a bit of a shift leftwards since Zanny became editor-in-chief, but I don’t mind one bit, as they haven’t lost the writers that promote classical liberalism, just added a bit of an internal critique of some aspects of academic economics.
But I’m very open to the idea that I’m missing something… especially since I’m such a fanboy!
That may just be selection bias of the articles I read.
I also loathe their coverage of the UK budget. It's a personally belief that George Osbourne's tenure in government has single-handedly sent the UK in a seemingly bottomless downward spiral back into 1970's Britain. He delivered his budget based on short-term fixes and populist gambits. The Economist talk about him and his policies as if he were some misunderstood hero of the age, and laud the absurd austerity measures of that government. Liz Truss recycles those same policies of tax cuts to the those who need it least, and the Economist does the same; that is, until the whole market finally comes crashing down. They back track as fast as they can, trying to distance themselves from her, talking about "how they would have done differently". It just seems so two-faced.
These are just a couple of examples but in summary, when their own fundamental beliefs are shown to fail, be it social or economic, they change tact so as to appear in the right instead of owning up and admitting any fault.
They ( as many others ), didn't view Ukraine fighting back and Western help as a good thing, Ukraine capitulation was "the right thing to happen" because for them Russia controlling Ukraine was a "fact of life". All this while their authors try to project an image of unmatched economic prowess but also rock-solid morals..
When "nothing is gonna happen" and business was good, there was the need to "support"/sell Ukraine stuff. When shit got real "It was important for the World to don't confront Russia and let it be", when Russia flubbed the military support for Ukraine needed to be much more! more!.
I'm sure now that the war is extensive but also will be long, they'll try to push the "Listen.. you have to broke a deal with Putin."
Every take they had over the years is in line with pretty much every tabloid. My main criticism is they pretend they are something else, some high society deep thinkers, when in reality they are not. They've missed every economic crash and found every one of it the same way all the others did.
Nearly every issue since February this year has contained calls to support Ukraine, titles like "Why Ukraine must win" and so on. They're very hawkish pro a Ukraine all-out victory, often describing Ukraine as fighting for all of Europe's (or even the entire West's) freedom.
Just as an example, did you read the things Mearsheimer wrote?
Since this Economist thing has become a quagmire due to Ukraine ( my fault for bring it up ), I reiterate my point:
I don't really have anything against them, not even their biases. I do get pissed when they somehow ride their wave of superiority when in fact they are pretty much mainstream. Yeah, they are better than the DailyMail, but not by the amount they project.
Yes, the print edition. Care to actually rebuke my arguments instead of making assumptions?
> Just as an example, did you read the things Mearsheimer wrote?
I googled this because I was confused because I could not remember seeing his ideas there (which I remember finding totally ridiculous). Turns out this was a "by invitation" section, clearly presented as an outside opinion. I haven't seen them reiterate his ideas anywhere (which I'd summarize as "it's totally OK for powerful countries to scare neighbours into becoming 'buffer zone' client states without any say in the matter"), they're very much for Ukraine's ability to determine their own future.
If you're angry about a paper publishing opinion pieces you're going to be angry about just about every paper out there because every one of them is going to sooner or later publish an opinion piece that you disagree with. That's the whole idea of opinion sections.