Thanks to that website, I no longer need independent thought or skepticism. So long as a website reports technical facts, I can’t dislike their editorial decisions, range of opinions or their record of fuck-ups like becoming advocates for the invasion or Iraq. I will defer to the “unbiased” label slapped onto them subjectively by a website not necessarily ran by someone who can even read non-English language news from around the world or who uses a benchmark of bias that is partocular to their national, ideological and cultural context, which is likely very different from mine. Thanks!
If you have to reach two decades back and your gotchya is a choice that most mainstream newspapers and politicians backed, well, I think that says more about your pre determined beliefs on the Economist than it does about the paper but to each their own?
(And of course, if you have a better media bias checker, you might suggest it to the mods at c/politics as it’s the one they use.)
I can reach back to literally today with their Gaza coverage. And no, “most” politicians didn’t back it - this is exactly where you’re falling short. I’m not British or American. An overwhelming majority of politicians in my nation and even my continent thought it was a criminal endeavor. Yet to you, that bias is baked into your national politics - “of course they supported it, everyone did!” I’m supposed to stake their credibility on how much they conform with the opinions of the British government? LOL! And exactly why I find your approach and trust in that website silly.
Oh, the mods at c/politics! Let’s do a quick census on how many of them are Russian, African, Asian, can read news in more than one language etc.
And yes, for an American decision, I used American politicians. It’d be pretty silly to do otherwise “Oh my God, a majority of politicians did not to protect the right to abortion in America, bizzare!” Lol.
Edit: I’d also point out I am neither British not American. Unsure why this matters but it seems to be a thing for you?
Why the hell would you bring up the decision of the US government to illegally invade Iraq as an excuse for a British newspaper endorsing and calling for that invasion and promising it would be a boon to the Iraqi people? Is “Of course the Economist supports whatever Washington decides” is your argument for their being unbiased?
We can move on to my opinions on the Economist’s Gaza coverage once you explain why you believe their coverage of whether the U.S government should invade Iraq was justified by the U.S government’s decision to invade Iraq. You seem quite desperate to move on from this argument because it’s inexcusable and proves my point.
Thanks to that website, I no longer need independent thought or skepticism. So long as a website reports technical facts, I can’t dislike their editorial decisions, range of opinions or their record of fuck-ups like becoming advocates for the invasion or Iraq. I will defer to the “unbiased” label slapped onto them subjectively by a website not necessarily ran by someone who can even read non-English language news from around the world or who uses a benchmark of bias that is partocular to their national, ideological and cultural context, which is likely very different from mine. Thanks!
If you have to reach two decades back and your gotchya is a choice that most mainstream newspapers and politicians backed, well, I think that says more about your pre determined beliefs on the Economist than it does about the paper but to each their own?
(And of course, if you have a better media bias checker, you might suggest it to the mods at c/politics as it’s the one they use.)
I can reach back to literally today with their Gaza coverage. And no, “most” politicians didn’t back it - this is exactly where you’re falling short. I’m not British or American. An overwhelming majority of politicians in my nation and even my continent thought it was a criminal endeavor. Yet to you, that bias is baked into your national politics - “of course they supported it, everyone did!” I’m supposed to stake their credibility on how much they conform with the opinions of the British government? LOL! And exactly why I find your approach and trust in that website silly.
Oh, the mods at c/politics! Let’s do a quick census on how many of them are Russian, African, Asian, can read news in more than one language etc.
What have you disliked about their gaza coverage?
And yes, for an American decision, I used American politicians. It’d be pretty silly to do otherwise “Oh my God, a majority of politicians did not to protect the right to abortion in America, bizzare!” Lol.
Edit: I’d also point out I am neither British not American. Unsure why this matters but it seems to be a thing for you?
Why the hell would you bring up the decision of the US government to illegally invade Iraq as an excuse for a British newspaper endorsing and calling for that invasion and promising it would be a boon to the Iraqi people? Is “Of course the Economist supports whatever Washington decides” is your argument for their being unbiased?
So, no actual complaints about the Gaza coverage then?
Edit: You might also actually read some of their articles about invading Iraq.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2003/02/20/why-war-would-be-justified
You can go ahead and justify your bizarre politician argument before you jump to another topic.
… Proceeds to not do so at all.
So, no actual complaints about the Gaza coverage then?
It’s okay to admit that you just assumed you’d dislike the coverage and haven’t actually read it.
We can move on to my opinions on the Economist’s Gaza coverage once you explain why you believe their coverage of whether the U.S government should invade Iraq was justified by the U.S government’s decision to invade Iraq. You seem quite desperate to move on from this argument because it’s inexcusable and proves my point.