Gaffes and blunders from The Economist
March 23, 2016 7:59 AM Subscribe
I have received the firm impression that The Economist is better at projecting an air of confidence and balance than at actually knowing what it's talking about or refraining from blatantly ideological interpretations and representations, but have lost all grip on the examples of same that impressed me. Maybe YOU can provide me with some examples?
E.g., cases where they just got it wrong despite calm confidence, or cases where they act as if a question about what to do is actually not a question because the answer is obviously [their preferred economic policy], or the like.
E.g., cases where they just got it wrong despite calm confidence, or cases where they act as if a question about what to do is actually not a question because the answer is obviously [their preferred economic policy], or the like.
The biggest mishap I know of since I started reading The Economist is a withdrawn review for the book Blood Cotton. That review attracted a lot of criticism at the time, see The Nation or Slate.
Like all newspapers The Economist regularly posts corrections. In print they appear as small paragraphs in the relevant section, typically the week after. Here's a random set of corrections in the online edition. I don't recall reading a particularly remarkable correction in the past few years.
Note that The Economist has an odd editorial voice in that the articles are published without bylines, which reads as if the newspaper has a single unified voice. I'm a regular The Economist reader and part of what I like is that air of confidence and balance. OTOH there's never been a problem that The Economist thinks can't be fixed by the free market, so personally I read factoring for their bias.
posted by Nelson at 9:17 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Like all newspapers The Economist regularly posts corrections. In print they appear as small paragraphs in the relevant section, typically the week after. Here's a random set of corrections in the online edition. I don't recall reading a particularly remarkable correction in the past few years.
Note that The Economist has an odd editorial voice in that the articles are published without bylines, which reads as if the newspaper has a single unified voice. I'm a regular The Economist reader and part of what I like is that air of confidence and balance. OTOH there's never been a problem that The Economist thinks can't be fixed by the free market, so personally I read factoring for their bias.
posted by Nelson at 9:17 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
They did state a few months back that a Trump nomination would "never happen."
posted by handful of rain at 9:21 AM on March 23, 2016
posted by handful of rain at 9:21 AM on March 23, 2016
Response by poster: I'm thinking also of subtler ideological economical things, like "the obvious solution for the woes of country X is … deregulation and austerity, nothing else is even conceivable!".
posted by kenko at 9:38 AM on March 23, 2016
posted by kenko at 9:38 AM on March 23, 2016
There has never been an Economist article on France that failed to mention that they need to liberalize their labor market.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:02 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 10:02 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeaaah, the economist, while sometimes insightful, often offers the same advice on all kinds of problems. It's worse if you're a citizen of a non-western nation (me) who knows that the Economist's portrayal of your country's latest economic woes is.. reductive at best. Although I still read it, these days there are better analyses on many ideologically diverse blogs and sites.
posted by tirta-yana at 11:18 AM on March 23, 2016
posted by tirta-yana at 11:18 AM on March 23, 2016
Free trade solves all problems! How does free trade solve all problems? Well, economics. They're pretty darn consistent on this score, too (which is why they can support Clinton).
That this intellectually bankrupt viewpoint continues to be held as THE ONE TRUTH in many countries, political systems, and by many economists in spite of lots of evidence to the contrary doesn't make them less intellectually lazy.
If it was half as true as they thought it was, Norway wouldn't be doing so well these days.
posted by Strudel at 11:27 AM on March 23, 2016
That this intellectually bankrupt viewpoint continues to be held as THE ONE TRUTH in many countries, political systems, and by many economists in spite of lots of evidence to the contrary doesn't make them less intellectually lazy.
If it was half as true as they thought it was, Norway wouldn't be doing so well these days.
posted by Strudel at 11:27 AM on March 23, 2016
Yes, I think there's a faulty assumption; although part of the house style involves presenting the 'case against' before coming down in favour of their preferred option, the Economist does not claim to be balanced or that it is not motivated by ideology. Quite the opposite; as Bwithh points out, it openly lays out its beliefs.
So to answer the question, articles about economic growth around the world will almost always suggest some sort of classical liberal economic program; a combination of freer trade, freer markets, lower taxes, privatisation etc. Alternative approaches are rarely given much space.
I don't always agree with the Economist. Sometimes I find it infuriatingly blinkered. But I like the on-the-table nature of that bias, its focus on data and facts to support arguments and the implicit assumption that readers can cope with complex, though clearly presented data sets. Plus there's some solid science writing and broad global coverage. (2500 words on African agriculture - what other major publication would touch that story?)
posted by Busy Old Fool at 2:23 PM on March 23, 2016
So to answer the question, articles about economic growth around the world will almost always suggest some sort of classical liberal economic program; a combination of freer trade, freer markets, lower taxes, privatisation etc. Alternative approaches are rarely given much space.
I don't always agree with the Economist. Sometimes I find it infuriatingly blinkered. But I like the on-the-table nature of that bias, its focus on data and facts to support arguments and the implicit assumption that readers can cope with complex, though clearly presented data sets. Plus there's some solid science writing and broad global coverage. (2500 words on African agriculture - what other major publication would touch that story?)
posted by Busy Old Fool at 2:23 PM on March 23, 2016
Following on from Chrysostom's point about France, about two years ago there was one of those 14 page specials on it's supposed economic malaise, with a series of charts comparing it to the UK on deficit, unemployment, etc. For most of the charts there was little difference between them, on some France was better, on some the UK, but clearly the desired conclusions were decided first.
There's another perpetual irritant for me, which while probably not exclusive to them, annoys me more as maybe I expect more. That is the single datapoint argument. One I remember from a while back is that affirmative action, or quotas/support along those lines doesn't work, as Malays in Singapore (no affirmative action) are wealthier than those in Malaysia (where there is). Never mind that there's probably many examples either contradicting or in line with that point, or more importantly, that Singapore as a whole is much wealthier than Malaysia.
Or another one from a while back accusing Obama of being partisan, as he never golfed with a Republican, unlike many predecessors. No idea whether he's ever tried to or not (and wouldn't blame him if not..), but the pool of Republicans willing to golf with Obama must be an endangered species, and that golf game would push it into extinction.
I've read it for quite a few years, and it's only in the past few that it's begun to annoy me slightly. I did bookmark this quote at the time, and have been waiting ever since to use it (a single datapoint, I concede). But if I ever need to look back and pinpoint the day that the Economist becomes self parodying and jumped the shark, it was August 17th 2013, the day it used this line without any sense of irony:
"Then there is the lazy appeal to the sovereignty of the market"
More or less summarises the Economist's politics. An article about the Sun's page 3, not that it's too relevant.
I might have digressed a bit, but it's good to finally vent....
posted by Boobus Tuber at 2:43 PM on March 23, 2016
There's another perpetual irritant for me, which while probably not exclusive to them, annoys me more as maybe I expect more. That is the single datapoint argument. One I remember from a while back is that affirmative action, or quotas/support along those lines doesn't work, as Malays in Singapore (no affirmative action) are wealthier than those in Malaysia (where there is). Never mind that there's probably many examples either contradicting or in line with that point, or more importantly, that Singapore as a whole is much wealthier than Malaysia.
Or another one from a while back accusing Obama of being partisan, as he never golfed with a Republican, unlike many predecessors. No idea whether he's ever tried to or not (and wouldn't blame him if not..), but the pool of Republicans willing to golf with Obama must be an endangered species, and that golf game would push it into extinction.
I've read it for quite a few years, and it's only in the past few that it's begun to annoy me slightly. I did bookmark this quote at the time, and have been waiting ever since to use it (a single datapoint, I concede). But if I ever need to look back and pinpoint the day that the Economist becomes self parodying and jumped the shark, it was August 17th 2013, the day it used this line without any sense of irony:
"Then there is the lazy appeal to the sovereignty of the market"
More or less summarises the Economist's politics. An article about the Sun's page 3, not that it's too relevant.
I might have digressed a bit, but it's good to finally vent....
posted by Boobus Tuber at 2:43 PM on March 23, 2016
They used to (I read them rarely now) subtly mention the obvious counterargument to the neolib case of the day in the next-to-last paragraph. Half a page of why one cooperative venture had failed, arguing that a resource should be privatized; penultimate para says eminent Smith disagrees (I quit reading the more often I knew enough about the issue to know I agreed with Smith), last para saying But really we ought to privatize.
posted by clew at 4:42 PM on March 23, 2016
posted by clew at 4:42 PM on March 23, 2016
Response by poster: the Economist does not claim to be balanced or that it is not motivated by ideology.
I actually half knew this, not that anyone could have guessed from my question. But the way it's talked about among many of my peers makes one think that they think that it's either calmly rational and not ideologically motivated or that one can just read past the ideology no problem (I think both of those positions are bats). I just want ammunition in case I have to talk to some odious NPR liberal type who, as Americans are wont to do, proudly mentions reading The Economist as some mark of distinction and sophistication. I think its popularity in America is largely to do with its tone.
posted by kenko at 5:24 PM on March 23, 2016
I actually half knew this, not that anyone could have guessed from my question. But the way it's talked about among many of my peers makes one think that they think that it's either calmly rational and not ideologically motivated or that one can just read past the ideology no problem (I think both of those positions are bats). I just want ammunition in case I have to talk to some odious NPR liberal type who, as Americans are wont to do, proudly mentions reading The Economist as some mark of distinction and sophistication. I think its popularity in America is largely to do with its tone.
posted by kenko at 5:24 PM on March 23, 2016
Back in 1991, James Fallows wrote "The Economics of the Colonial Cringe" in the Washington Post. You might enjoy it.
posted by beisny at 6:43 PM on March 23, 2016
posted by beisny at 6:43 PM on March 23, 2016
Here is a critique from James Fallows at the Atlantic. Among other quotes is this from Michael Lewis, author of Liar's Poker and the Big short: "If American readers got a look at the pimply complexions of their economic gurus, they would cancel their subscriptions in droves."
The Economist is staffed by a bunch of 20-year-olds fresh out of Oxbridge trained to sound like 60-year-olds.
posted by JackFlash at 6:55 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Economist is staffed by a bunch of 20-year-olds fresh out of Oxbridge trained to sound like 60-year-olds.
posted by JackFlash at 6:55 PM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Economist actually is a "mark of distinction and sophistication" if you compare it to generic American media in terms of tone and style. They imply impartiality but it's misleading, they lean to the right somewhat.
(If you wanna appear more suave to your peers, look at Foreign Affairs. Every essay has a bias, but it's more open to interpretation.)
posted by ovvl at 9:32 PM on March 23, 2016
(If you wanna appear more suave to your peers, look at Foreign Affairs. Every essay has a bias, but it's more open to interpretation.)
posted by ovvl at 9:32 PM on March 23, 2016
Today would have been Scotland's independence day, if the 2014 referendum had gone the other way. The Economist backed unionism - but the outcome has not turned out so well for the people of Scotland (the Wee Black Book).
The issue of Scotland illustrates a some problems with your question: firstly it is quite tempting to believe that TE's opinion is that that of its editorials. I've seen quite a lot of evidence of journalists who publish articles which go one way but which are paired with editorials which go the other; which one is "wrong"? Secondly, there are some cases where an outcome which may have been right for one party could have been detrimental for the other. Finally, there are relatively few issues where a prediction can be said to have been flat out wrong - it is more that important nuances and unexpected outcomes fail to get predicted.
posted by rongorongo at 12:34 AM on March 24, 2016
The issue of Scotland illustrates a some problems with your question: firstly it is quite tempting to believe that TE's opinion is that that of its editorials. I've seen quite a lot of evidence of journalists who publish articles which go one way but which are paired with editorials which go the other; which one is "wrong"? Secondly, there are some cases where an outcome which may have been right for one party could have been detrimental for the other. Finally, there are relatively few issues where a prediction can be said to have been flat out wrong - it is more that important nuances and unexpected outcomes fail to get predicted.
posted by rongorongo at 12:34 AM on March 24, 2016
« Older Is my Dad invited to Easter dinner with the family... | Seeking 1980s novel linking Chartres Cathedral... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
More generally, they do advocate for certain policy outcomes that can infuriate readers, judging by the comments, but that's part of what they do. From a wikipedia article on their editorial stance:
"The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage."
posted by Short Attention Sp at 9:05 AM on March 23, 2016 [1 favorite]