Whether that lasts depends on its ability to overcome acute shortages of power, men and money
  • splinter@lemm.eeEnglish
    2·
    3 days 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.worldEnglish
      8·
      3 days 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.

      • splinter@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        11 hours ago

        I see what you’re getting at and your position is reasonable, but I think misses the point of the initial comment, viz. The Economist is known for objective reporting (neutrality in bias), in part because they are open about their editorial slant (non-neutrality of opinion).

        For example: “Ukraine is winning the economic war. This is a good thing.” - Economist reporting vs. “Ukraine is winning the economic war. This is a bad thing.” - Converse-Economist vs. “Ukraine is losing the economic war.” - Pro-Russian bias