242
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] cyd@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The Economist isn't neutral. Quite the opposite: they pride themselves on being opinionated. They might seem neutral only because those opinions regularly cross the traditional US left/right divide (e.g., they were one of the mainstream news outlets talking about Biden's diminishing faculties long before his meltdown).

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Their op ed section, yes. Their news and investigative articles, no. They are well-known for their factual reporting that tends to be free from bias.

Most major media outlets have op ed sections. That really is not what people are talking about when they call a news source a neutral outlet.

[-] cyd@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago

The Economist mixes snarky comments and snippets of opinion into their coverage to a much greater extent than other media outlets. Their "opinion" pieces (leaders) are sometimes just a truncated version of the longer "news" article later in the issue.

Not saying it's a bad thing; they're pretty open about it and that's how they've always been.

[-] splinter@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

This is materially incorrect in multiple ways.

  1. The Economist’s reporting is widely recognized for its absence of bias.
  2. Leaders are not opinion pieces, they are brief overviews, hence why they seem like “truncated versions” of articles.
  3. The “snippets of opinion” to which you refer are reporting on public opinion. I thought that was obvious.
[-] cyd@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Leafing through the latest issue, here's a random article:

The Biden administration pursued a mistaken policy on LNG exports.

This is not a leader, but in the news section. In the contents:

Despite her reassuring tone, this was a sharp-elbowed effort to place an obstacle in the way of the incoming Trump administration... Mr Biden bowed to election-year pressure from the subset of environmentalists hostile to LNG... As for the claim that increasing American lng would help China, it is politically clever, playing as it does on anti-China sentiment in Washington, dc, but energetically dumb...

Look, again, I'm not castigating The Economist here. They have a particular way to present news, and their readership knows it. But they definitely do not try to be "neutral" in the way other outlets do.

this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
242 points (97.3% liked)

World News

39364 readers
2142 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS