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.
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.
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
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.
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.
This is materially incorrect in multiple ways.
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:
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.
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