dagblog - Comments for "The Influence of The Economist"

I don't think political bias

artappraiser — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 20:25:28 +0000

In reply to Not to argue with what you

I don't think political bias and lack of scholarship should have to go hand in hand. Just like I think it is actually possible for some jurors to set aside personal biases to judge a case fairly. How does the song go: call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Let me add though: I would call your approach here scholarly, checking writer's background for possible bias but not automatically assuming effect!

Ya think? NOT EVERYONE is

Ramona — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 20:18:42 +0000

In reply to Not to argue with what you

Ya think?

NOT EVERYONE is happy about this, especially those who view the world from a more leftward angle. Thus the Observer, a soft-Left—and possibly envious—English weekly newspaper with little influence or impact outside the British Isles, grumbles that the Economist’s writers “rarely see a political or economic problem that cannot be solved by the trusted three-card trick of privatisation, deregulation and liberalisation.” There is some truth to this. At heart, the Economist remains what it began as, an advocate of the classic nineteenth-century English strain of liberalism that favored social reform, open markets and a representative form of government with a franchise that expanded in tandem with better, increasingly accessible education and resultant economic progress. There is nothing new here, but these qualities remain the key to progress in functioning democracies—and will have to evolve in lawless, corrupt police states in much of the Third World and many parts of the former Soviet Union if they are to become stable, free societies.

Not to argue with what you

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 19:44:48 +0000

In reply to I especially liked that he

Not to argue with what you say here but I thought his opining included a definite political bias. His bio at the end gave support to that opinion.

Aram Bakshian Jr., a contributing editor to The National Interest, served as an aide to presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. His writing on politics, history and the arts has been published widely in the United States and abroad.

P.S. I must admit another

artappraiser — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 19:39:09 +0000

In reply to I especially liked that he

P.S. I must admit another thought that occurred to me: OIC, destor finds this piece interesting because it's related to Bobo's yearning for some more elite leaders.

I especially liked that he

artappraiser — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 19:36:19 +0000

In reply to The Influence of The Economist

I especially liked that he went back and actually read and studied cover to cover before opining, as he said here

Twenty years ago, Microsoft’s Bill Gates said that one reason he didn’t have a TV set was that watching it wouldn’t leave him enough time to read each issue of the Economist from cover to cover. For the first—and probably the last—time in my life, I found myself emulating Bill Gates. Trudging through the Economist, week after week, I found I was watching less and less television, especially television news and documentaries of the “serious” sort which, even at their best, cannot convey as much information as a really well-written article.

But then, I found myself wishing he had watched TV at the same time and then be more able to compare. But what the heck, can't expect a PHD dissertation from every article, I'll take what little scholarship I can get these days.

Which brings me to the thought, which relates to the article's content: why is scholarship still considered elitist? How many more centuries do we have to wait until it isn't?