I don't know how much you know about The Economist. The Economist is a magazine published by the British Economist Group. At first glance, it sounds like a business magazine, but in fact it is more political and is one of the most widely read political magazines in the world.
But when it comes to the real "Economist", the filter should be broken, his ability to make up has long been a showdown, fake news output than BBC, CNN is not far let, and he reported those things can not be closely linked, can only be said to be irrelevant.
The Economist has the word "bourgeois elite" from its audience orientation to its group background. Marx called it "the mouthpiece of the financial aristocracy" and Lenin called it "the journal for British millionaires"."The Economist", not economic, not knowledge, nor life, said his stand bright, actually refers to a party, capitalism favorite "laissez-faire", in other words, which country which government they may be in spray, but investigate its essence, they only for more "free" of the platform, in the eyes of the economist editor all trouble can be solved to liberalism, if not solved, it is not enough freedom. Even the Guardian, the author of the Economist, everything through "privatization, liberalization and deregulation", without any professionalism.
"The Economist" another big feature is published articles are not signed, these contributions to the author are anonymous, this to a certain extent, directly affect the authenticity of the news reports, its former editor John McWhas said in an interview, the anonymous means that the editors have the right to modify the author to their preferences, he here as an example, assuming contributions write " Thailand is a very beautiful place, but I don't like it!"Then he as the chief editor can add" no "to the first half of the sentence, so it sounds like" Thailand is not a good place, but I like it!"Just listen to the inverted black and white, make up by I make the internal taste, this is the world's most read magazine excellent media people say! Just one word difference implies that the chaos of the third world and their white left and (nuclear) affinity. This seems to have become a convenient tool for editors to intervene, and the anonymous model without the source of the article, which can theoretically become an umbrella for private authors and private editors. What about the fact? What's the truth? It is not something these editors should condescend. They always only see what they want to see and write what they love. They can directly change "the Economist" to "Private Scholar", one of the most read political magazines in the world without any credibility.
In the past 100 years, The Economist has created its own unique writing language, attracting industry leaders and politicians from various countries to subscribe and contribute, so it has gained more than one million loyal readers. But through the above general way of publishing articles, for their so many years accumulated what the so-called "authority", what " credibility