The Economist is an old magazine, founded in 1843. This magazine is very stubborn and awkward to call itself "newspaper", every article in it, it seems to be straightforward, but many simply can not stand the scrutiny of time.
The magazine has also been criticized by many people in the industry, including when, in 1991, American journalist James Farrow wrote in the Washington Post that the editorial used by the Economist to cover some news events contradicted the event itself. In 1999, Andrew Sullivan criticized "The Economist" for using "genius marketing" to cover the lack of analysis and reporting, and became the author's claim that while the Economist (the bubble actually burst two years later), the dangers when the Dow fell to 7,400 during the Labor Day holiday in 1998. He also believes that since many of the newspaper's journalists and editors have graduated from Magdalen College at Oxford University, its editorial philosophy is limited by this homogeneous thinking. The Guardian once referred to The Economist as "writers almost never believe that there are any political or economic problems that cannot be solved through privatization, deregulation and liberalization". Jon Micham, the former editor-in-chief of Newsweek, who claims to be a loyal reader of The Economist, criticized the paper for relying heavily on analysis and neglecting original reporting.
Not only that, but in 2012, The Economist was accused of invading the computer of Bangladesh and publishing his personal email, leading to Hugger's resignation as chief judge of the Bangladesh International War Criminals Court, but the paper denied the charges.
Moreover, the paper's position is questionable. In 2014, after heavy criticism, The Economist removed a book review of the works of the American historian Edward Battiste. The book focuses on slavery and American capitalism. In its original review, the Economist criticized: " Almost all black people in his book are victims, and almost all white people are villains."Battiste attributed such negative comments to the paper's strong belief in" market fundamentalism " 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 prejudice, inaccuracy, and dishonesty. Is the so-called clear from the clear, the turbid from the turbid, the eyes are full of dirty, see anything will not be clean.
- 前ページ
- 次ページ