Though not strictly speaking an news item, London based weekly publication The Economist is very much an item of news. (See that? Pretty clever.) The Economist has been setting agendas and informing the minds of the most powerful men in the world for well over a century, since its founding in 1843 by Scottish hatmaker James Wilson. From humble beginnings it has grown into one of the most prestigious publications ever to glare at you disapprovingly from the magazine rack, right next to the last copy of Nuts, so that Mao can show you just how disappointed he is with you(pictured above). The Economist is famous for its editorial tilt, which ranges from being called 'moderately monetarist' to 'Ebenezer Scrooge and Margaret Thatcher bumping cocks'. An oft-cited example is its intensely revisionist view on the development of Asian Tiger economies, which holds that the startling development of countries like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan is due to their fundamental openness to foreign trade, and their embracing of the competition of the free market. One has to admire the Oxonian aplomb with which this publication manages to ignore the facts entirely by dint of its overweening tone of British condescension. It's no surprise that the magazine is most popular in the USA (over 50% of its readership), where it is considered the epitome of elite publications.
The problem with The Economist is that it presumes to both summarise a week's worth of political, financial, economic, technological and cultural news in the span of a few dozen articles, and provide an insightful analysis in each of these topics. What results is a rushed, often out-dated publication that relies much more on clever, maverick-sounding judgments than on measured appraisal. In this weeks issue, with only two articles of space with which to cover Sarah Palin's candidacy, an issue which readers will have been saturated with the entire week, The Economist's greatest asset is its editorial style and air of authority. There is rarely anything in The Economist that cannot be gleaned through a fairly regular daily review of the news, and the most useful service the magazine provides is as a weekly manifesto of the opinions a well-read right-wing upper-middle-class man might have on current affairs.
Posts
7 comments:
I tend to read the economist online as a news channel specifically for its comments section, trying to filter out the interesting comments from the (stupid, bigoted) rest, which often tends to be a fairly painful and masochistic process. I'll be sure to use your blog as my personal filter from now on ;)
i wanted to comment on the other post of yours on america, ill do it here.
what is sadder yet is the fact that McCain actually did manage to gain a lead (hopefully of temporary nature) on Obama.
McCain is not poised to do anything different than to follow the current path set by Bush with his appointment 8 years ago.
iran has a tragic history - its democratically elected president was overthrown by the british government in conjunction with america (due to the Iranian president wanting to nationalize iranian oil-related assets), which lead to a sequence of events which would see the Iranian people, who desired nothing but stability and freedom from the influence of the western powers (certain people like to point out that theocratic Iran began the so called "hostile" attitude by taking over the american embassy in tehran; what these same people do though is to strategically cast a blind eye towards the reason why this happened, i.e. why the iranians called this embassy "the den of spies" and which side actually commenced hostility), backing an eloquent, well-mannered and apparently wise cleric who promised them nothing more than what they all wanted to hear.
the relationship between Iran and America (and Israel) can be metaphorically explained by two trains, on the same track, heading towards each other and into certain collission. Is Iran actively pursuing nuclear weapons? We can't really know. Should Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Iran is not a suicidal state, the regime is not really a regime, it's a theocracy - a quasi democracy. What's perhaps worrying to most is whether Iran would proliferate nuclear weapons / material to the "terrorists" that it backs (hezbollah), but again, this all depends on whether Iran is suicidal. It is not, therefore, by the same token that the world has a relatively fuzzy view towards Pakistan, Iran having nuclear weapons would not really be that much of a problem. America's existence actually justifies it, unfortunately - America demonstrated that it is willing to invade sovereign countries in order to spread "democracy", so why shouldn't Iran fear that America is going to decide to set a democratic foot on its soil next?
is iran even going to actively pursue the path which would lead it to become a WMD state? it could very well be that what Iran is seeking is to get rid of the economic sanctions that were placed on it. What else could be more effective than to indirectly threaten the world whose hands are tied behind their backs that they're going to pursue nuclear weapons, or to actually get them?
The answer to this whole problem / mess is what Obama is hoping to do if he gets elected - first and foremost, starting out by opening diplomatic channels. Secondly, creating a framework whereby the whole world starts reducing its dependence on WMD deterrence, by reducing / annihilating its WMD stockpile, reducing / stopping the need of the vicious, self sustaining cycle of researching & creating more effective WMD for the scope of "self defence", and creating a regulatory framework of passive/peaceful deterrence, where all research and materials that could even indirectly lead to WMDs be strictly regulated / overseen.
globalization is going to help/continue the policy of "peaceful" deterrence in tandem, as the whole world (including china imho) moves towards democratization and its economies become fused together, a disruption in one economy -> disruption in the whole system.
What does McCain have to do with all of this? exactly, nothing at all. MCCain is an ill-tempered, impulsive & short sighted man who is not fit to lead America in times like this. Obama is a man who actually had the courage to say that he would "talk" to iran, who said that he would reduce the power of the lobbies, who reasoned well why he is going to pull out the troops in Iraq as swiftly and effectively as possible, and who spent most of his life trying to understand the problems that afflict America, and the rest of the world as a whole. And I need not look much further than the note he succintly wrote and placed in the prayer wall in jerusalem: "[...] help me guard against pride and despair" to judge the depth of his character & quality of his judgement.
With Obama's appointment, I hope and believe that America will have a change in the foreign policy that characterized it post WW2 and that directly lead to the emergence of islamic terrorism among other problems, towards a new foreign policy suited for the 21st century, which will be characterized by the emergence of countries no more dangerous to world stability than America is right now, i.e. India, China and Russia, with the old, dangerous tyrannical/irrational regimes now gone (i.e. Soviet Union).
Gaian
glad to hear you've got hope, Gaian. It's good that you're reading up on recent history and current affairs. Maybe a more succinct comment would have made your message clearer?
Good to have you as a reader, in any case.
haha didn't notice that the message got so long :P it's that when I go on a rant I forget about everything else and tend to make an unmerciful monologue, probably so that I can better clear my own thoughts :P :P
anyways, cheers and continue the good work!
Gaian
No worries, I'm glad you're so fired up about it. You should have your own blog. Unless you do already?
hmmm, a blog? I'm just a simple observer who tries to justify hope by connecting dots - nothing much to say, just a bit to disorderly clear up.
I don't regularly read blogs (actually, I do - the few that I do don't relate at all to current affairs, but you might like them: http://www.gaijinsmash.net/, http://sushicam.com/), but I like your blog, given that it seems to me to be a regularly updated beacon of reason that actually acknowledges the existence of conscience. And your writing style reminds me of a younger, rising Jeremy Clarkson :)
and wtf is alex anyways? *scratches his head*
:P
Gaian
Giorgio, if you ever remind ME of a younger, rising Jeremy Clarkson, I'll consider it my duty to murder you.
Have a nice day!
Yeah, I hope you meant Jeremy Paxman, right? Don't have much taste for Jeremy Clarkson. I don't know anything about cars.
Post a Comment