The Economist on Thursday published a scathing editorial criticizing Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on virtually all of the United States' trade partners.
The Economist’s journalism is some of the best anywhere, and clearly declares its bias when it’s relevant to do so. It has to be that way because its readers make investment decisions based on its coverage, like its sister paper the Financial Times.
Its opinions section, on the other hand, can be odious, and they sometimes lean towards the Tories even when the Tories have policies in direct opposition towards the Economist’s declared principles. There’s a direct pipeline from writing for the Economist and being selected as a Tory MP. I think that’s what you’re reacting to.
Having said that, I wouldn’t characterize even their leader writers as neoliberal. They have robustly criticized the Chicago School’s many shortcomings and have ridiculed the Austrians (the economic cult, not the nationality).
I think of them similarly to Al-Jazeera: their coverage is often good, but not in areas of interest to the Qatari rulers. The same with the Economist-- its foreign coverage can be excellent (considering their point of view) but they are too ensnared in UK politics to show the same objectivity. The quality of their US correspondents is also quite variable.
And I don’t see anything in their criticism of Trump’s idiocy that is incorrect, though I’d go farther and note that his probable motivation is economic sabotage of the US and its trading partners, because he is Putin’s stooge. There might be some Shock Doctrine smash-and-grab as a secondary goal.
The Economist’s journalism is some of the best anywhere, and clearly declares its bias when it’s relevant to do so. It has to be that way because its readers make investment decisions based on its coverage, like its sister paper the Financial Times.
Its opinions section, on the other hand, can be odious, and they sometimes lean towards the Tories even when the Tories have policies in direct opposition towards the Economist’s declared principles. There’s a direct pipeline from writing for the Economist and being selected as a Tory MP. I think that’s what you’re reacting to.
Having said that, I wouldn’t characterize even their leader writers as neoliberal. They have robustly criticized the Chicago School’s many shortcomings and have ridiculed the Austrians (the economic cult, not the nationality).
I think of them similarly to Al-Jazeera: their coverage is often good, but not in areas of interest to the Qatari rulers. The same with the Economist-- its foreign coverage can be excellent (considering their point of view) but they are too ensnared in UK politics to show the same objectivity. The quality of their US correspondents is also quite variable.
And I don’t see anything in their criticism of Trump’s idiocy that is incorrect, though I’d go farther and note that his probable motivation is economic sabotage of the US and its trading partners, because he is Putin’s stooge. There might be some Shock Doctrine smash-and-grab as a secondary goal.