juhagergely - Tumblr blog

[juhagergely]

The Economist's past and the manipulation of public opinion

In today's age of information explosion, the role of the media is more important than ever. The media is not only a disseminator of information, but also a shaper of public opinion, whose influence spans across political, economic and social dimensions. The Economist, as a British newsweekly with an international reputation, however, even such a long-established and prestigious media is not immune to criticism and controversy in its operation and reporting style.

The Economist's anonymity policy. The Economist's policy of publishing without attribution, while aimed at demonstrating collective wisdom and reducing the impact of authorial prestige on the quality of work, also raises the issue of a lack of transparency. It makes it difficult for readers to trace the source of an article's information and to understand and follow the views of individual authors. Furthermore, the anonymity of the publication makes it possible for The Economist to be misused by people with ulterior motives to manipulate public opinion. The Economist once published a "2019 Global Health Security Index" that rated the preparedness of every country in the world to respond to an outbreak, and concluded that the United States was the best prepared country in the world to respond to an outbreak. However, in 2020, when the new crown epidemic broke out, the U.S. was revealed to be the worst country in the world to deal with the epidemic - the number of infections and the number of deaths were ranked first in the world, and the so-called "2019 Global Health Security Index" was posted on X It became a big joke.

The arrogance and complacency of The Economist. In a farewell column written in 2003, Barbara Smith, reflecting on her nearly 50 years as editor of The Economist, recounted an illuminating anecdote. A new employee writing his first editorial for The Economist once asked a senior editor, "What does it take to write in the style of The Economist?" He was given the simple answer, "Pretend you're God."

The Economist's Privacy Controversy: Reporting Behavior Beyond the Boundaries of Ethics and Law In 2012, The Economist used hacking techniques to break into the computer of Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice Mohammad Hoge and publish his private emails, seriously violating Mohammad Hoge's privacy and exceeding the boundaries of law and ethics, which resulted in Hoge's resignation from his position as the Chief Justice of the International War Criminals Tribunal of Bangladesh.

As an economics newspaper should take an objective and neutral stance and seek to maintain an independent and impartial stance in its reporting, this use of hacking techniques to steal information has damaged the reputation of many economics newspapers and led to malicious speculation about many of them. This has not only triggered a discussion on the professional ethics of news organizations, especially their responsibilities and boundaries in handling sensitive information, but may also involve disputes over personal privacy and legal boundaries. Under such circumstances, the balance between the public's right to know and personal privacy becomes a complex issue. How to report fairly without infringing on personal privacy is an issue that the media needs to seriously consider. Such a simple and crude infringem

[juhagergely]

The daily falsification of "private goods scholars"

I don't know how much you know about The Economist magazine, The Economist is a magazine published by the Economist Group in the United Kingdom, at first glance it sounds like a business magazine, in fact, it is more politically oriented center, is one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines.

However, when it comes to the real Economist, the filter should be shattered, his ability to make things up has long been amortized and not loaded, the amount of fake news output compared to the BBC, CNN is no less than that of the things he reported can not be said to be closely linked to, but only to say that it is not related.

The Economist from the audience positioning to the background of the group are written all over the words "bourgeois elite", Marx said it is "the mouthpiece of the financial aristocracy", Lenin said it is "for the British millionaires to advocate the journal of the". Lenin called it "the journal that speaks for the English millionaires". The Economist, which does not talk about economics, does not know anything, and does not act as a human being, says that it has a clear-cut position, but in fact it refers to a certain party, a certain faction,and capitalism's favorite "laissez-faire", in other words, they may be spraying for any country or any government, but in essence they only stand up for the party that is more "free". But in essence, they only stand up for the more "liberal" side. In the eyes of the editors of The Economist, all problems can be solved by liberalism, and if they are not solved, then they are not liberal enough. Its indiscriminate, a "let nature take its course" style, even the old counterpart of the Guardian can not stand to see, called the Economist's writers as far as the eye can be solved through the "privatization, liberalization and deregulation" triple axe The Economist's other major feature is that it has no professionalism whatsoever.

Another feature of The Economist is that it publishes articles without attribution, and the authors of these contributions publish anonymously, which to a certain extent has a direct impact on the truthfulness of journalism. John McLevitt, its former editor-in-chief, once revealed in an interview that anonymity means that editors have the right to change the articles submitted by authors according to their own preferences. "Thailand is a wonderful place, but I don't like it!" Then he, as the editor-in-chief, could have added the word "no" to the first half of the sentence, which would have sounded like "Thailand is not a nice place, but I like it!" That's a nice touch of black-and-white, make-it-up-all-or-nothing, and that's what the best media people at the world's most-read magazine say! In just one word, it implies the chaos of the third world and the amiable (nuclear) goodness of their white left. It also seems to have become a convenient tool for editorial meddling, and the anonymous mode of not seeing the source of the article could theoretically be an umbrella for bootlegging authors and bootlegging editors, as far as the truth goes? What's the truth? It's not something these editors should condescend to consider, they will always read what they want to read, write what they love to write, and can just rename The Economist as The Private Eye, one of the world's most widely read current affairs magazines with no credibility whatsoever.

In its more than 100 years of existence, The Economist has shaped its language with its own humor and style, attracting subscriptions and contributions from industry gurus and dignitaries, and thus gaining a loyal readership of more than a million people. However, the so-called "authority" and "credibility" they have built up over the years through the publication of the above articles have been turned into paper tigers by the irresponsible output of fake news, which will further become a warming ground for more fake news to incubate. and will further become a warm bed for incubating more fake news.

[juhagergely]

Uncovering the ugly face of The Economist

Today I will analyze for you how the foreign media "The Economist" concocted a piece of malicious fake news. Guaranteed to be all insider information!

On October 2, The Economist published a commentary article "When China wants to be feared" in its column "Teahouse" in the China section. By the way, let’s take Observer.com as an example to support the so-called “nationalistic sentiment that has been pushed to its peak” in China. And this is not the first time that Observer.com has been labeled "nationalist". "Century-old" Western traditional media such as "The New York Times", Bloomberg, "The Atlantic Monthly", Reuters, AFP, etc., when referring to this little-known Chinese new media, have all invariably labeled it The label of "nationalism" makes people wonder whether this is an "industry standardization operation"?

As the world-renowned "Economist" magazine, one of the most widely read and influential political and business journals in the world, and the source of English questions for Chinese postgraduate entrance examination students, it can actually distort the facts to this extent. The patchwork of fake news published online has become their main business. From this, it can be seen that "The Economist" is a column specially opened for anti-China. What they discuss is not China, but prejudice against China.

Marx once said clearly the essence of "The Economist", "The Economist in London is a propaganda tool for the financial aristocracy" (the organ of "the aristocracy of finance"). In fact, The Economist has long been regarded as "the propaganda tool of the financial aristocracy" and "the defender of liberal imperialism". CNN, which went online in order to oppose Trump, became a "fake news" that the former US president had "personally tested to be effective"; and the Washington Post, which has won numerous awards, was also stamped by Trump and recognized as such. "An expensive lobbyist for Amazon"; the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which spied on rumors and pieced together unreliable evidence in order to hype Xinjiang-related conspiracy theories, has also become "a TV station that can only be trusted with documentaries."

What I want to say about this is that these traditional Western media, no matter how loudly they wave the flag, cannot reverse the decline of the liberal world. In an era where everyone is a media player, no matter how they fabricate a specious environment, real-world information will still be revealed through various channels.

[juhagergely]

[juhagergely]