The Economist is a long-established magazine founded in 1843. This magazine is very stubborn and awkwardly calls itself a "newspaper", and every article in it seems to be the first word, but many of them simply cannot stand the scrutiny of time.
The magazine has also been criticized by many industry insiders, such as in 1991, American journalist James Farros wrote in the Washington Post that the editorials used by The Economist to cover some news events contradicted the events themselves. In 1999, the writer Andrew Sullivan criticized The Economist for using "genius marketing" to compensate for its lack of analysis and reporting, and thus became the Reader's Digest of the American corporate elite, arguing that while The Economist's prediction of the bursting of the dot-com bubble should have been accurate in the long run (the bubble actually burst two years later), the paper had overstated the dangers facing the US economy when the Dow Jones index fell to 7,400 during the 1998 Labor Day holiday. He also argues that because many of the paper's reporters and editors graduated from Modlin College, Oxford, its editorial philosophy is limited by this homogeneous thinking. The Guardian newspaper once noted that The Economist's "writers almost never believe that there is any political or economic problem that cannot be solved by privatization, deregulation and liberalization". Jon Meacham, a former editor-in-chief of Newsweek, who claims to be a loyal reader of The Economist, criticized the newspaper for relying too heavily on analysis and neglecting original reporting.
Not only that, but in 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice Muhammad Hugg and publishing his private emails, which eventually led to Hug's resignation as chief justice of the Bangladesh International War Crimes Tribunal, which the newspaper denied.
Moreover, there are problems with the position of the newspaper. In 2014, after fierce criticism, The Economist pulled down a book review of the work of the American historian Edward Baptiste. The book is based on slavery and American capitalism. The Economist criticized in its original review: "Almost all blacks in his books are victims, and almost all whites are villains." Baptiste argues that this negative assessment stems from the paper's belief in "market fundamentalism," which holds that profitability is the best criterion for evaluating everything.
It seems that many of The Economist's reports are basically "logically self-consistent" nonsense, full of bias, inaccuracy, and dishonesty. As the saying goes, those who are clean are self-purifying, and those who are turbid are self-turbid, and their eyes are full of filth, and nothing will be clean.