No more drugs for the editors of The Economist

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

1321851888 / 301139947 = around 4.39
1900 / 432 = around 4.39

[Kyla]

What is the point of doing something which is so easily distorted and so forseeably distorted, for a magazine which otherwise has an impeccable reputation for credibility?

Meh. Who cares about distortion in an online poll of no importance? I think it’s cute. Thanks for the link - my subscription ran out a couple weeks ago and I’ve been too busy to read it much online, but I still <3 the Economist.

Oh, and I’m a US-definition liberal. I don’t always agree with everything their editors say, but it’s still a really great way to keep up with current events.

[The_Second_Stone]

The Economist is a left leaning magazine? I do not think that the phrase “left leaning” means what you think it does.

[First_Amongst_Daves]

A correction on that. Its socially liberal, economically conservative.

I wasn’t aware there was more than one definition of “liberal”.

[pulykamell]

@First_Amongst_Daves

A correction on that. Its socially liberal, economically conservative.

I wasn’t aware there was more than one definition of “liberal”.

Oh, there’s more. The Economist is what I would call economically liberal.
Also from Wikipedia:

When the newspaper was founded, the term “economism” denoted what would today be termed “fiscal conservatism” in the United States, or “economic liberalism” in the rest of the world (and historically in the United States as well). The Economist generally supports free markets, globalisation, and free immigration, has been described as neo-liberal.

[The_Second_Stone]

I must be reading a different Economist than you guys are reading. The Economist I read is a right leaning magazine that supports conservatives and conservative causes. The Economist endorsed Bush in 2000, and only after four years of disaster endorsed Kerry in 2004.

Mother Jones is a liberal magazine. The Nation is so far to the left it is no longer even liberal. There are no other major liberal magazines in the US. IMHO.

[pulykamell]

@The_Second_Stone

I must be reading a different Economist than you guys are reading. The Economist I read is a right leaning magazine that supports conservatives and conservative causes.

You must be reading a different Economist then, or, more likely, your definitions are different than mine. The Economist is liberal in the classical sense. I would call it neither right-leaning, nor left-leaning, nor even middle of the road. It doesn’t really fit well on the left-right continuum as it’s popularly defined in America. For example, the Economist supports the legalization of drugs and prostitution, which is not usually identified as a right-wing conservative cause. It’s also anti-capital punishment, and pro-gun control. In social issues, the Economist most closely resembles the American left. In fiscal issues, the Economist most closely resembles the American right (or at least what the American right used to be.)

Here’s what the Economist has to say about itself.

What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? “It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper’s historical position.” That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. 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.

In my circle of (mostly liberal to very liberal) peers, the Economist is not considered a blatantly partisan publication like, say, The National Review. It’s generally well-respected and read by people with a wide spectrum of political beliefs.

[Avumede]

If there was a global electoral college, I would think that McCain may win. China would vote for the communists, of course, which would be one gigantic wasted vote. India would vote for McCain, and at that point Obama would have a lot of work to do to pull ahead.

[Dead_Badger]

@The_Second_Stone

I must be reading a different Economist than you guys are reading.

Indeed you must. For an instructive time, I suggest you go on their blogs and check out the comments (in particular on those articles relating to the current American election). You will be surprised at just how many people think The Economist is run by unabashed lefties.

One might hope that from this apparent contradiction we would learn something about the nature of bias, and the perception thereof. But we never do.

[Wendell_Wagner]

Here’s a list of liberal American magazines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Modern_liberal_American_magazines

Here’s a list of conservative American magazines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_American_magazines

The Economist doesn’t fall in either category. By current American standards, averaging over both its economic and social positions, it’s fairly middle-of-the-road. Maybe it ought to be called libertarian, given that it’s more economically conservative and more economically conservative. However, it isn’t very libertarian. The only explicitly libertarian American magazine that I can think of is Reason.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Wendell_Wagner

The Economist doesn’t fall in either category. By current American standards, averaging over both its economic and social positions, it’s fairly middle-of-the-road. Maybe it ought to be called libertarian, given that it’s more economically conservative and more economically conservative. However, it isn’t very libertarian. The only explicitly libertarian American magazine that I can think of is Reason.

That’s because it isn’t American.

[tagos]

@Throatwarbler_Mangrove

Maybe they’re just trying to have a bit of fun?

Also:

If by “left leaning” you mean “Somewhere to the left of Benito Mussolini”.

Quite. The Economist is a right-wing magazine but a good one.

[BrainGlutton]

No, more drugs, please! More drugs for the editors of The Economist!

[Rhythmdvl]

@hawthorne

The Economist does not have a left-leaning readership or an impeccable reputation for credibility.

Would you clarify please?

[Wendell_Wagner]

Really Not All That Bright writes:

> That’s because it isn’t American.

True, but that’s not what I was saying. I was saying that it’s neither particularly liberal nor conservative.

[Gyrate]

My informal impression is that The Economist is moderately liberal in the American sense, which makes it moderately conservative in the British sense. Certainly they’ve no love for the neo-conservatives and are definitely anti-Palin, but whether that makes them properly liberal or just old-school conservative is hard to say. They seem more ambivalent about the three big UK party leaders Brown, Cameron and Clegg (apart from deservedly excoriating Gordon Brown for his obvious failings).

[The_Second_Stone]

@pulykamell

You must be reading a different Economist then, or, more likely, your definitions are different than mine. The Economist is liberal in the classical sense. I would call it neither right-leaning, nor left-leaning, nor even middle of the road. It doesn’t really fit well on the left-right continuum as it’s popularly defined in America. For example, the Economist supports the legalization of drugs and prostitution, which is not usually identified as a right-wing conservative cause. It’s also anti-capital punishment, and pro-gun control. In social issues, the Economist most closely resembles the American left. In fiscal issues, the Economist most closely resembles the American right (or at least what the American right used to be.)

Here’s what the Economist has to say about itself.

In my circle of (mostly liberal to very liberal) peers, the Economist is not considered a blatantly partisan publication like, say, The National Review. It’s generally well-respected and read by people with a wide spectrum of political beliefs.

I think it is a conservative rag because of endorsements like Reagan, Thatcher, Bush etc. There really isn’t any way of getting around it except to redefine liberal as “classical liberal” which is libertarian jargon for someone with his head up an imagined 200 year old ass. The Enlightenment classical liberals are only more relevant today than High Middle Ages thinkers by having the benefit of the additional historical development of intellectual tools, as we have two full century’s worth on our forefathers. We do not live in a classical liberal society, nor would most people who thought it through want to. In our civilization every person is actually equal before the law, rather than a mere 3/5s for counting enslaved negroes to offset against the more numerous electors of the north. Such a compromise would not have ever been discussed, much less embraced.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Wendell_Wagner

The Economist doesn’t fall in either category. By current American standards, averaging over both its economic and social positions, it’s fairly middle-of-the-road.

^^This.

I have had a subscription to The Economist for near 20 years now.

They are decidedly socially liberal and economically conservative. If anything I would say they are slightly right leaning as I think they let their economic views trump their social views if the two are in conflict but I admit I am reaching there a bit.

Overall though I guess each person views them as one side or the other based on their own biases but in fact they are very even handed with most things.

Certainly I can think of no other rag that strives to be as fair as they do. Bias is unavoidable and I spot it in their columns but on the whole, even when panning one side or another, they tend to give voice to the opposing viewpoint. Add that their columns are in depth and lengthy and devoid of rancor and I believe them to be the best news magazine in existence.

They are definitely highly regarded by all sides whether they agree with what they are saying or not…stood against the likes of Time Magazine or Newsweek they blow them out of the water.

IIRC I once read (somewhere) that Time was written to about an 8[sup]th[/sup] grade reading level while The Economist was written to a 12[sup]th[/sup] grade or college reading level. That alone recommends them in my book given the subject matter.

[Dead_Badger]

@The_Second_Stone

I think it is a conservative rag because of endorsements like Reagan, Thatcher, Bush etc. There really isn’t any way of getting around it except to redefine liberal as “classical liberal” which is libertarian jargon for someone with his head up an imagined 200 year old ass.

What the blithering fuck are you on about? It’s been explained to you six ways to Sunday what their position is, but you can’t get past “they liked Thatcher! Conservative!” Yet they endorsed Blair (the second and third times around), Clinton and (reluctantly) Kerry. If you can bear entertaining thoughts of yet another non-American political spectrum, they also supported the left-wing Romano Prodi in Italy, and are about as fervent opponents of right-wing incumbent Silvio Berlusconi as it is possible to imagine. Explain, if you could, how a conservative viewpoint is one that supports (among others):

[ul][li]Drug liberalisation[/li][li]Gay marriage[/li][li]Abolition of the death penalty[/li][li]Immigration liberalisation[/li][li]Penal reform[/ul][/li]As I tried, gently, to suggest earlier, your perception of bias is completely and utterly fucked. You’re so obsessed with identifying enemies that you appear completely unable to think in anything but black and white. It’s no wonder you keep bumping into things.

The Enlightenment classical liberals are only more relevant today than High Middle Ages thinkers by having the benefit of the additional historical development of intellectual tools, as we have two full century’s worth on our forefathers. We do not live in a classical liberal society, nor would most people who thought it through want to. In our civilization every person is actually equal before the law, rather than a mere 3/5s for counting enslaved negroes to offset against the more numerous electors of the north. Such a compromise would not have ever been discussed, much less embraced.

It’s got words, and some of them are verbs, so I’ll charitably assume there are sentences in it. Sense, however, is there none. What were you going for here, exactly? Classical liberals are racists? It’s a mystery.

[Gyrate]

To be fair, their opposition to Berlusconi is less to do with his place on the political spectrum and more to do with the fact that he’s blatantly corrupt.

And I’m pretty sure The Economist is in favor of “negroes” voting.