41–50 of 206 posts
The point of the chief editor is so true that I'm surprised to read that from them. I have noticed that a lot of times with this kind of web media. - You have a clickbait title like this: "How a normal guy managed to hack WallStreet with a simple pen" - Then, you have one page of interesting introduction on the topic but without the reply to the title question. "In november 2018, WallStreet was busy with the introduc…
Oh, are they finally apologizing (or providing proof for) their story The Big Hack about chips the size of a grain of rice China puts in computers made by Dell and Apple and others? No? Not a word about it? It’s almost like they’re continuing to pretend that their giant journalistic screwup doesn’t exist. Don’t care. ‘Are articles are too long’. How about yours articles are untrustworthy?
They should have been sued, and not from a being petty perspective. Libel laws are a huge part of what keeps the media trustworthy. I'm also curious why they were not sued, and tbh that makes me wonder...
To be clear, I'm definitely of the belief that this was a screwup even if the reporter/editor still believes the story was accurate. Based on what is known, it certainly seems to be false.
Part of Bloomberg's business model is news-as-advertising; "This company developed this new therapy, find out more". I think that's what the editor is referring to as "enterprise stories". He's basically saying - listen, when a company is paying for a news article, don't let them stuff the piece or bury the lede. Get their key message down and move on, our readers skim the article for the beef anyways so you're just…
The point of the chief editor is so true that I'm surprised to read that from them. I have noticed that a lot of times with this kind of web media. - You have a clickbait title like this: "How a normal guy managed to hack WallStreet with a simple pen" - Then, you have one page of interesting introduction on the topic but without the reply to the title question. "In november 2018, WallStreet was busy with the introduc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find that Economist articles about things I don't know much about are great. But the more I know about the topic, the less I think of the article. It isn't just the spin; sometimes you can guess whom they were talking to and whom they weren't by how wrong and they way they get something wrong.
>But the more I know about the topic, the less I think of the article. Gell-Mann Amnesia, as Michael Crichton put it: "Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it to slavishly neoliberal. I used to read The Economist, then in the build up to 2008 when according to them all the growth was actual real growth, the system was fine, and banks knew what they were doing. I no longer read it.
I find it to slavishly neoliberal. That (or in its older guise, free-trade principles) is literally a founding premise of the newspaper: PROSPECTUS: of a weekly paper, to be published every Saturday, and to be called THE ECONOMIST, which will contain ... First.—ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day—political events—and parliame…
Adam Smith, whom they model themselves after, was against rentier activity, The Economist is not.
The UK is presently embroiled in negotiating all kinds of trade agreements as part of Brexit, and none of the countries will be signing a reciprocal "free trade" agreement between the two, it's a pipe dream.
In addition, Smith would have been appalled at the UK running a huge deficit ad-infinitum, selling off land to pay for it, and generally making very little. The Economist has very little to do with classic liberals. What The Economist supports now is lunacy, and we've seen in the response to Covid in the UK and the USA that both countries are on their knees.
Again: I find it slavishly neo-liberal.
The point of the chief editor is so true that I'm surprised to read that from them. I have noticed that a lot of times with this kind of web media. - You have a clickbait title like this: "How a normal guy managed to hack WallStreet with a simple pen" - Then, you have one page of interesting introduction on the topic but without the reply to the title question. "In november 2018, WallStreet was busy with the introduc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it to slavishly neoliberal. I used to read The Economist, then in the build up to 2008 when according to them all the growth was actual real growth, the system was fine, and banks knew what they were doing. I no longer read it.
I have the opposite experience. For example, they had a cover page article a about the global housing bubble in 2005. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2005/06/16/in-come-...
The analysis from a journal that purports to be about economics should have come in the build up to the crisis, not when the first huge cracks appear in the damn, having spent the prior decade shouting "put more water in".
The point of the chief editor is so true that I'm surprised to read that from them. I have noticed that a lot of times with this kind of web media. - You have a clickbait title like this: "How a normal guy managed to hack WallStreet with a simple pen" - Then, you have one page of interesting introduction on the topic but without the reply to the title question. "In november 2018, WallStreet was busy with the introduc…
That was hilarious, please apply to the position as chief editor!