The Economist is, in general, pretty good. But it has a viewpoint. It's open about it, and compensates to an extent by also, mostly, believing in a full, frank, and largely accurate reporting of what's happening in the world.
It still manifestly fails in this on repeated occasions (virtually anything associated with limits, though that may be changing). I'd read the magazine for some decades before running across the prospectus itself, here, by the way:
Which lays out that a paper called The Economist to be published "which will contain":
_First.—ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day—political events—and parliamentary discussions; and particularly to all such as relate immediately to revenue, commerce, and agriculture; or otherwise affect the material interests of the country._
Long before this I'd noted that the slant of the leaders was often directly contradicted by the companion full stories further back in the magazine, most especially from foreign correspondents in developing countries -- India, China, and the various African states particularly.
Again: there are some grounds on which to consider The Economist fairly good, and its companion The Financial Times as well. Simply on a criterion of mentioning substantial figures, both rate quite highly amongst mainstream periodicals, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3hp41w/trackin...
Huh. I am using The Economist as an example of something with viewpoint that mostly manages to be unbiased, so I don't understand why you're telling me so vigorously that it has a viewpoint but mostly manages to be unbiased. I too have read it for decades and am familiar with its origin. What were you hoping I'd learn from this comment?
Well, I'm not intimately familiar with your own awareness of The Economist. I've established that we both seem to have a similar depth of awareness.
My view is that the paper has a specific bias and that that should be considered. In particular, it results in an inaccurate framing for economic and policy issues.
It still manifestly fails in this on repeated occasions (virtually anything associated with limits, though that may be changing). I'd read the magazine for some decades before running across the prospectus itself, here, by the way:
http://www.economist.com/node/1873493
Which lays out that a paper called The Economist to be published "which will contain":
_First.—ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day—political events—and parliamentary discussions; and particularly to all such as relate immediately to revenue, commerce, and agriculture; or otherwise affect the material interests of the country._
Long before this I'd noted that the slant of the leaders was often directly contradicted by the companion full stories further back in the magazine, most especially from foreign correspondents in developing countries -- India, China, and the various African states particularly.
Again: there are some grounds on which to consider The Economist fairly good, and its companion The Financial Times as well. Simply on a criterion of mentioning substantial figures, both rate quite highly amongst mainstream periodicals, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3hp41w/trackin...