this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
36 points (97.4% liked)
Asklemmy
45399 readers
909 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The Economist. They’re big on free markets and open democracy. So they’re pretty much smack dab in the middle for political bias (i consider then ‘soft’ neoliberalism. Still neoliberalism but at least they still respect that there is a human price that needs to be considered). They’re recognised for reliable, factual reporting and analysis (as long as you keep in mind their analysis is coached per their belief in free markets/open democracies as the superior model). But in terms of factuality and having journalists on the ground actually interviewing primary sources, they’re great. https://adfontesmedia.com/the-economist-bias-and-reliability/
They’re not big on either of those things. They’re big on bourgeois interests, which are economic & political oligarchy and imperialism. Lenin called it, "a journal which speaks for British millionaires," and now it speaks for the Global North’s billionaires.
I try to point people toward developing real media literacy.
I'll politely agree to disagree. I've seen The Economist labeled as neoliberalist, but my personal opinion is that they tend to push more for centrism and social democracies in the articles and podcasts i've consumed.
If OP has access to these magazines, it doesn't hurt for them to check it out for themselves.
Now in terms of media literacy, i'll throw this into the ring. When reading an article, we should categorise what we read into the following. Verifiable Fact (ie, it is possible to obtain primary evidence that it had happened), Opinion (Someone's interpretation of a piece of information in context of their own bias or goals), or Fabrication (Generalisation, unverifiable evidence, No True Scotsman arguments, etc).
I tried to call out the bias that The Economist has for OP, but it doesn't change that their 'Factual Reporting' is high. You may not agree with their Opinion of what the facts mean. But it doesn't change factuality if it is verifiable. Given OP's interests "politics, philosophy, interesting facts, history, social issues." I maintain that The Economist is among the most well written magazines that provide what he/she is looking for.
And on the note of bias, i'll ask. "Is Lenin's opinion of a Western magazine in context of UK inaction in WW1 following Germany's invasion of Serbia really the most unbiased evaluation, nor is it even a relevant evaluation given that it was made over a hundred years ago?"