Perhaps I overstate the case, but we have all witnessed its shifting editorial current. It’s now much more sympathetic to the left and impeccably Green. I’ve also been noticing awfully weird commentary lately in its articles. For instance, in last issue, there was an article saying Hillary Clinton is the odds-on favorite to win the Presidency. That’d be fine, except I have no idea where these odds are and whose mind came up with the notion, certainly not borne out by polls. Maybe they exist somewhere, but all the polls I have seen show Republican front-runners beating Hillary and I have never seen an exception. What is going on?
And then in this article:
The favourite to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, Hillary Clinton, is arguably the most centrist candidate. The Republican front-runner (although his polls are slipping) is still Rudy Giuliani, a pro-gay, pro-choice ex-mayor of New York.
Who on God’s green earth thinks that Hillary Clinton is more centrist than Rudy Giuliani? This is ludicrous! Is universal healthcare a centrist position now? Is waiting gleefully for tax hikes in 2011 centrist? I suppose that given the evolving views of the Iraq “War,” her military views seem more centrist — despite the fact that most of our uniformed women and men would feel shamed at serving under her as Commander-in-Chief, though perhaps not as shamed as they did serving under her husband. In any case, Rudy is fiscally conservative, though not ideologically so, and socially liberal. Hillary is fiscally liberal, socially liberal, and both are unabashedly ambitious. But do you really mean to tell me that Hillary is more centrist?
Is this the same Economist known for its piquant wit? Its vigor in articulating common sense economics? Its clarity in discussing world events? Last issue, the outfit discussed Prodi’s “stable” government in Italy. This issue? Prodi’s teetering on the edge!
Of course, they have always been anti-Israel for some reason — but this article seems outlandish to me even by their standards. They mention how hard it is to come to an agreement on creating a Palestinian state, but go out of their way to avoid mentioning the intransigence of Arafat that made it so for so long, especially during the Clinton Administration when Israel essentially offered up everything Arafat wanted, only for the terrorist to add a ludicrous, off-the-table Right of Return to his demands! In Star Trek VI, Captain Kirk explained that “people can be very frightened of change,” but none more so than the terrorists who keep their people in fear. Insultingly, The Economist adds that “the speed and scope [of victory in the Six Day War] led many Israelis to see a divine hand in their victory” and that this has contributed to their occupation. We certainly might forgive them that, given the odds stacked against them and the element of surprise being on the aggressor’s side (the aggressor was not Israel), but it’s mostly an issue of security — how can Israel have any sort of comfort, any sort of stability, with tin-plated dictators trying to shore up support by invading it? Putting settlements on the ground may have been a shrewd move, but it was not illegal as The Economist says.
It’s time for the editors of the magazine to step back and take a deep breath.
If you’re correct that this is a general trend, that would be regrettable. The Economist is by far the best news magazine available. (We all know that modern day “newspapers” are defined by the newsprint they’re printed on, not the content.)
I stopped regularly reading any periodical a couple years ago to further insulate myself from the real world. So I can’t comment much further.
LOL, well, I still think it’s the best in print for sure — but the trend seems clear. Maybe it’s just me moaning that it’s not the breadwinner of right-leaning libertarianism I perceived it to be, and maybe it’s just because Blair has redefined center-left politics in Britain, where certainly the effete intellectual and political elite may have some sway on the magazine. And also, maybe it’s because the center-right is on the retreat here in America, so maybe once all that is corrected, The Economist will be on the road to recovery.
I will say, however, its coverage of France has been outstanding of late.
Maybe I never paid close enough attention, or perhaps recent events have brought out The Economist’s elitism. Two events come to mind: “Global Warming” and gun control.
In a debate published in the LA Times, The Economist defended the anti-gun position. In a nutshell, The Economist’s editorial position would make it all but impossible for anyone to own a double action revolver, and semi-automatic handguns, if my memory serves me, would not be legal. The position was very clear: all guns are bad, and only the government should have them. The Economist ran an article after the shootings at Virginia Tech. That article brought out The Economist in all its glory: An elitist British magazine bashing the less evolved gun laws of the United States, a country where, my God, mere citizens are ALLOWED to own GUNS!?!?!?
Combined with The Economist’s unquestioned acceptance of UN estimates on the costs of fighting global warming, even though those estimates are not peer-reviewed, are written by bureaucrats (not scientists), and are released before scientists all allowed to justify them. A large number of scientists have stopped writing work for the UN for that reason, viz., the summary data is released before it is validated, but scientists whose conclusions are different from the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers are told that their conclusions must CONFIRM the pre-released data. I.e., the UN bureaucracy has spoken, the scientific community is either with the UN, or its opinions never see the light of day.
The Economist knows this is how the process works, unless its staff is utterly incompetent. So when it writes “if these cost estimates are accuracte” and other such asinine remarks, it already knows the answer: the UN will only publish the conclusions that support its data.
The Economist is not, and perhaps never was, on the side of liberty and journalistic integrity. Notice its editorials are not predicated on the freedom of the individual, which is why guns are out, but on freedoms which benefit “society.” Next time you read an article in The Economist that defends economic freedom, pay close attention. I believe you’ll see the reasoning has nothing to do with liberty of the individual, and everything to do with how “society” benefits from free exchange.
The Economist is a fair weather friend of liberty at best, and it is not even a good one.
That’s true Eric, I have certainly read the constant reasoning that says society benefits from individual freedom. They seem to have some understanding of the issue, although I think they have been contradictory in line with what you said. It’s elitism. Bob pointed out that the change in the management of the paper coincided with a very noticeable shift to “Green” advocacy and saying the Global Warming propaganda through its bullhorn.
The VTech example was another one that I had wanted to rail about. It pissed me off so much at a time when I was getting emails from people all around the world saying “AH-HA! THIS PROVES IT!” and I said, “YES, it proves we need GUNS!” The Economist comes out with its tripe about gun control and leaves me speechless.
i haven’t read the article, but the conclusion i would draw based on your block quote would be not that hillary is more a centrist than rudy but rather that, in line with the successes of conservative democrats last fall, both candidates are moderates and both parties are opting to appeal less to their bases at the fringe and more to the general population.
when a republican is described as pro-gay and pro-choice - unless he’s also “soft on crime,” “anti-american,” and “a hysterical tree-hugging global warming alarmist” who favors a troop pull-out and wants to raise our taxes - the emphasis is on his centrism.
Slade, you should be taking that as one of the conclusions of the article, but there’s another conclusion you seem to be missing: “…Hillary Clinton, arguably the most centrist candidate” — in other words, that The Economist, or some writer, there approved by the new Editor-in-Chief, feels Hillary Clinton is probably MORE centrist. It’s a ludicrous, probably indefensible mistake on their part, one which has cost the Democrats dearly in most elections of the past 27 years.
Something that doesn’t look as indefensible is the still-idiotic comment about Hillary being a favorite to win. It looks like polling has changed considerably on the subject since I left for France at the end of my exams. The more telling point is still that waaaaay more Independents are leaning Democrat than Republican, which is also reflected in the accurate Iowa Electronic Market. There’s not a chance in hell it’ll stay that way, but watch closely.
it seemed possible to me that they were saying that she’s the most centrist candidate for the democratic nomination (a claim with which i also take issue, don’t get me wrong), but i might’ve misinterpreted.
How exactly is the Economist anti-Israel? Do they call for the destruction of the Jewish state? Do call for the driving of the Israelis into the sea? Or is the leveling of criticism enough to warrant the term? I read the article you link to make that point, and I just don’t see your reasoning. They do mention Arafat’s rejection of the offer; but I guess they don’t belabor it to your satisfaction. Funny that, because this is an editorial about Israel and a broad, perhaps overbroad, look at the effects of the Six-Day War. See also the actual report on the war and its effects. Considering the evidence you’ve presented, I just don’t buy claims of anti-Israeli bias, Admiral.
That said, I’ve noticed a subtle change in direction since Micklethwait took over, but nothing earth shattering yet. Frankly, my interpretation of their writing things like “the smart money is riding on Clinton” and the like is that they’ve drawn that opinion from the intelligentsia and from a reading of their own tea leaves. I object to it because it seems like poor journalism rather than left-ward bias.
The whole point is that this can’t possibly be a random reading of tea leaves. There’s a reason why it is a concerted, left-moving shift in all these views. Global warming. Clinton. The list will go on and on, mark my words.
Just because the views tend to coincide with your views, doesn’t mean they aren’t anti-Israel. When they so blatantly mischaracterize the catatstrophe of the Arafat rejection, and make it seem like the problem has really been belabored all that much by Israel, without referencing any SERIOUS reason why Israel acts the way it does, why it fears the terrorism, why it felt like it needed to hold onto the land besides the outrageously stupid and naive (read: PURPOSEFULLY MISCHARACTIZATION; these people are not stupid) reasons of Divine this and Divine that. BS!
Here are some tea leaves for you to read, Admiral: an unpopular two-term incumbent leading an unpopular war. You yourself said a year or two ago that Bush’s polls would be important to Republican chances in ‘08. An economist (fancy that!) looking at these facts through the lens of the economics literature on presidential elections (spread across several journal articles) could reasonably put money on the other party. Like I said, I think this kind of speculation is bad journalism, but coupled with the ambiguity of the statement you cite (does “most centrist candidate” include or exclude Republicans) and their broader coverage of the campaign trail, I don’t think you have a strong case in this regard.
And the Israel piece was an editorial (written by the pinko-commie editor-in-chief), not an article, and thus subject to stronger space constraints. Have you read the actual “special report”? I’d be keen to hear your opinion on the main piece. I understand that they don’t belabor the threat to Israel’s existence, but the editorial, in my reading, maintains that the Six-Day War resolved that particular issue in fact, implying that Israel has subsequently misjudged the situation. It also demands that the Arabs make Israel feel secure as a Jewish state, recognizing the difference between fact and sense.
Admiral, your evidence is insufficient for this case too. Is the piece pro-Israel? No. It’s not pro-Palestinian, either. Israel is not blamed categorically nor is it demonized. The actual threat to Israel’s existence posed by Arab states before the war, the at least perceived threat thereafter, and rocket attacks are all mentioned in the article and condemned. Not once is “stupid” or “naive” used. Stop putting words in the text if you’re trying to indict it. “Hubris” (a classical human weakness) is used, as is “folly” (a lack of good sense often brought on by hubris). Objectionable, perhaps, on grounds of preference in wording, but nothing outright damnable.
Now I’m arguing for argument’s sake. G’ah. I’ll leave it at this: I agree that there’s a shift in the publication’s perspective, but I remain unconvinced that there’s a deliberate anti-Israeli and pro-Hilary/Democratic agenda. Time will tell whether I have my head in the sand or you’ve jumped the gun.