This is an interesting look into the foundation and current ethos of The Economist by the podcast 'citations needed'. It gives a great rundown of the magazine's historically colonialist, racist,...
This is an interesting look into the foundation and current ethos of The Economist by the podcast 'citations needed'. It gives a great rundown of the magazine's historically colonialist, racist, and anti working class roots and looks into how it shapes the message and narrative of the articles today.
I was motivated to post this after seeing a number of articles from The Economist posted recently and wanted to provide context to their narratives.
If war is good for the economy, economists that like the current economy will support war, and be pro-colonialism. Paying workers more reduces profits. Economists who don't like this will oppose...
If war is good for the economy, economists that like the current economy will support war, and be pro-colonialism.
Paying workers more reduces profits. Economists who don't like this will oppose it.
The two combined make for an environment that fosters racism.
They weren't particularly nefarious articles, it was one on the resurgence of drive ins and one on home ownership. I just thought their articles pop up with enough frequency to justify a critique...
They weren't particularly nefarious articles, it was one on the resurgence of drive ins and one on home ownership. I just thought their articles pop up with enough frequency to justify a critique of their underlying ethos.
Actually, the underlying ethos of the home ownership article is quite different as that article criticises the cult of home ownership. (The full text can be found in this Reddit post.)
Actually, the underlying ethos of the home ownership article is quite different as that article criticises the cult of home ownership. (The full text can be found in this Reddit post.)
I don't think that's really in conflict with OP's point, such as it is. I think I alluded to it in my comment in that thread, but to recap, it's pretty ideologically on-brand for a magazine so...
I don't think that's really in conflict with OP's point, such as it is. I think I alluded to it in my comment in that thread, but to recap, it's pretty ideologically on-brand for a magazine so supportive of the class interests of landlords to be opposed to widespread personal homeownership.
Yeah, I wasn't taking aim at the articles themselves, I had just listened to the podcast and was primed when I began seeing them pop up throughout Tildes.
Yeah, I wasn't taking aim at the articles themselves, I had just listened to the podcast and was primed when I began seeing them pop up throughout Tildes.
The Economist on the 1973 coup they had spent months cheering on, happily reposted by them in 2008.
This is an interesting look into the foundation and current ethos of The Economist by the podcast 'citations needed'. It gives a great rundown of the magazine's historically colonialist, racist, and anti working class roots and looks into how it shapes the message and narrative of the articles today.
I was motivated to post this after seeing a number of articles from The Economist posted recently and wanted to provide context to their narratives.
If war is good for the economy, economists that like the current economy will support war, and be pro-colonialism.
Paying workers more reduces profits. Economists who don't like this will oppose it.
The two combined make for an environment that fosters racism.
Could you give the link or title to those example articles that motivated you?
They weren't particularly nefarious articles, it was one on the resurgence of drive ins and one on home ownership. I just thought their articles pop up with enough frequency to justify a critique of their underlying ethos.
Actually, the underlying ethos of the home ownership article is quite different as that article criticises the cult of home ownership. (The full text can be found in this Reddit post.)
I don't think that's really in conflict with OP's point, such as it is. I think I alluded to it in my comment in that thread, but to recap, it's pretty ideologically on-brand for a magazine so supportive of the class interests of landlords to be opposed to widespread personal homeownership.
Yeah, I wasn't taking aim at the articles themselves, I had just listened to the podcast and was primed when I began seeing them pop up throughout Tildes.