What's with these half-baked and politically motivated opinionated pieces?
According to The Economist:
The good that's happening in India is due to Modi having "turbocharged" what his rival party Congress set out to do. How? By "pouring in" money, as if that alone is ever sufficient for any country's infrastructure.
The bad that's happening in India is due to Modi standing in the way of progress ("Yet Bhubaneswar also illustrates what is holding Indian cities back... Mr. Modi must try to give them more power")
Yes, The Economist can have political opinions, and it can (and does) call out what it dislikes about a party even when it really is not relevant, but if it does not have the courage to lay out facts with an open mind, it should stop pretending to have any measure of truthfulness or objectivity.
The real question is whether we as the public are doing a good enough job at holding these esteemed publications accountable for their mission -- especially as they continue to hold the position of authoritativeness in the public eye. (NYT holds a cachet that no number of Twitter handles or Medium sites combined would come close to.)
The Economist operates from a elitist vantage point and lacks reputation because no individual writer is ever given credit and no one ever puts their name to any opinion piece. So of course they're going to espouse whatever fashionable thought they have today and proclaim themselves international experts of local matters.
Comments
What's with these half-baked and politically motivated opinionated pieces?
According to The Economist:
The good that's happening in India is due to Modi having "turbocharged" what his rival party Congress set out to do. How? By "pouring in" money, as if that alone is ever sufficient for any country's infrastructure.
The bad that's happening in India is due to Modi standing in the way of progress ("Yet Bhubaneswar also illustrates what is holding Indian cities back... Mr. Modi must try to give them more power")
Yes, The Economist can have political opinions, and it can (and does) call out what it dislikes about a party even when it really is not relevant, but if it does not have the courage to lay out facts with an open mind, it should stop pretending to have any measure of truthfulness or objectivity.
I don't think large media companies are ever going to stop pretending they don't have political motivations or any truthfulness or objectivity.
My question was rhetorical but sure.
The real question is whether we as the public are doing a good enough job at holding these esteemed publications accountable for their mission -- especially as they continue to hold the position of authoritativeness in the public eye. (NYT holds a cachet that no number of Twitter handles or Medium sites combined would come close to.)
The Economist operates from a elitist vantage point and lacks reputation because no individual writer is ever given credit and no one ever puts their name to any opinion piece. So of course they're going to espouse whatever fashionable thought they have today and proclaim themselves international experts of local matters.