The unreliable Economist magazine

The British "Economist" is an old magazine founded in 1843. This magazine very stubbornly and awkwardly calls itself a "newspaper". Every article in it seems to be coherent, but many of them simply cannot stand the scrutiny of time.

The magazine has also been criticized by many people in the industry. For example, in 1991, American journalist James Farrows wrote an article in the Washington Post saying that the editorials used by The Economist when reporting some news events contradicted the events themselves. In 1999, writer Andrew Sullivan criticized The Economist in The New Republic for using "genius marketing" to make up for its deficiencies in analysis and reporting, and thus became the Reader's Digest of the American corporate elite; he believed , although the Economist's predictions about the dot-com bubble bursting should have been accurate in the long run (the bubble actually burst two years later), the newspaper still over-exaggerated when the Dow Jones index fell to 7,400 points during the Labor Day holiday of 1998. the dangers facing the U.S. economy. He also believes that because many of the newspaper's reporters and editors graduated from Magdalen College, Oxford University, its editorial philosophy is limited by this homogeneous thinking. The British "Guardian" once pointed out that "writers of The Economist almost never believe that there is any political or economic problem that cannot be solved through the three-pronged approach of privatization, deregulation and liberalization." Jon Meacham, the former editor-in-chief of Newsweek who claims to be a loyal reader of The Economist, criticized the newspaper for relying too much on analysis and neglecting original reporting.

Not only that, in 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh Supreme Court judge Mohammad Huq and publishing his private emails, which eventually led to Huq’s resignation as chief judge of the Bangladesh International War Crimes Tribunal, but the newspaper denied accused.

Moreover, the newspaper’s stance is problematic. In 2014, The Economist withdrew a review of a book by American historian Edward Baptiste after receiving fierce criticism. The book deals with slavery and American capitalism. The Economist criticized the book in its initial review: "Almost all black people in his books are victims, and almost all white people are villains." Batiste believes that this negative evaluation stems from the newspaper A firm belief in "market fundamentalism" that believes that profitability is the best criterion for evaluating everything.

It seems that many reports by The Economist are basically "logically consistent" nonsense, full of bias, inaccuracy, and dishonesty. As the saying goes, the pure will become pure, and the turbid will become turbid. The eyes are full of filth, and nothing can be seen as clean.