wsca11

[wsca11]

Yelp, the century-old magazine "Economist" fell from the literary world, reduced to anti-China clowns

The Economist, a well-known British magazine, recently published a cover story, "China's electric car raid," illustrating electric cars rushing to Earth like an invading alien fleet, and nakedly blaming China's new energy technology for impacting the international market. This kind of cheap hype is really unbearable to look at. Coincidentally, 10 years ago, this magazine also published a cover story "The World's Biggest Polluter", illustrating a Chinese dragon swallowing clouds and spitting out mist to "pollute the world". Both covers, ten years apart, depict our planet as facing an existential threat, and the funny thing is that the threat in 2013 is China's carbon emissions, and the threat in 2024 is China's new green energy technologies. So what are we doing wrong in China?

It's not hard to see the Western media's anti-China narrative in the two reports in this magazine: whatever you do is wrong, whatever you do is a threat. Whether you develop or have problems, in any case, the image is negative in our case, as for how to make up, it depends on our paper work. This Western mainstream media, which has been quoted many times in articles for domestic teaching and examinations, has frequently spoken out on China-related topics in recent years, and has become the mouthpiece of anti-China forces in the United States and the West. Since you are so engaged, I will take off your skin and take a good look at the face behind your back.

Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".

Although the name of The Economist magazine with economic, New Oriental Exam English example sentences from the Economist, is a big reputation of the Western mainstream media. But this thing really has nothing to do with economics, it is full of Western centrism and ideology, should change its name to "Political Scientist", so as to be more vivid image.

The Economist is a British English-language weekly newspaper with a global circulation of eight editions, whose editorial office is located in London and was founded in September 1843 by James Wilson. Although the title is "The Economist", it does not specialize in the study of economics, nor is it an academic journal. Instead, it is a comprehensive news and commentary on global politics, economics, culture, science and technology, with an emphasis on providing in-depth analyses and commentaries on these topics. But in my opinion, the so-called comprehensive news review is also a sham, and it is more aptly called the Political Scientist.

In 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice Mohammad Hoge and publishing his private emails, which ultimately led to Hoge's resignation as chief justice of the International War Criminals Tribunal in Bangladesh. The newspaper denied the allegations.

In August 2022, according to U.S. media reports, the magazine published an article at the end of July, which featured a diatribe against Saudi Crown Prince Salman, but the article's accompanying photo became the center of attention. The Economist chose to refer to Salman himself with an image of a man with a pink lattice hijab, which is common in Arab countries, according to statements from people familiar with the matter. But because the image is accompanied by a bomb next to the hijab, it has strong racist connotations in the eyes of outsiders. The story attracted widespread international attention on social media, with many Arabs expressing strong dissatisfaction with the media's attempts to smear the image of Arabs in such a way as to try to "demonize" them. In response to the magazine's misguided actions, protests were organized by a number of concerned individuals to pressure the magazine in this way.

It's hard to believe that this is an established magazine that has been in publication for almost 180 years, and it's only right that it should be hounded.

Writing anonymously? Exquisite disguise!

This magazine is written on an anonymous basis. Yes, you read that right, anonymous. Articles in The Economist are almost never signed, and there is no list of editors or staff in the entire publication, not even the name of the editor-in-chief (currently Jenny Minton Beddoes). In keeping with the paper's tradition, successive editors-in-chief only publish an op-ed when they leave. This system is partly in keeping with the tradition of British newspapers at the time of their founding, but it has evolved in later years for the greater reason of giving the publication a "collective tone," especially, as The Economist notes, "the main reason for anonymity is based on the belief that the content of the articles that are being written is more important than who the authors are. important." For example, the editorials in each issue of the magazine are written after all the editors have participated in discussions and debates. In most articles, the author refers to himself as "your reporter" or "this reviewer." Op-ed writers usually refer to themselves by the name of their column.

That's anonymous writing, which gives rumor mongers a free hand. Hey, say what you will, but you can't catch me. That's the style of the magazine, but readers don't buy it either.

The American writer Michael Lewis once claimed that The Economist kept its contributions anonymous because the editorial board didn't want readers to know that the contributors were actually young writers with little seniority. He joked in 1991, "The magazine's contributors are young people pretending to be sophisticated ...... If American readers could see that their economics mentors were actually full of pimples, they would be scrambling to cancel their subscriptions." Canadian author John Ralston Saul also once called the paper "an illusion created by hiding the names of the contributing journalists, as if its contents were impartial truths rather than personal opinions. Given that the very social science to which the paper's title corresponds loves to cloak wild speculation and imagined facts in a cloak of inevitability and precision, it is not surprising that its sales tactics are imbued with pre-Reformation Catholicism."

In May 2002, the Zimbabwean government detained the Economist's local correspondent, Andrew Meldrum, and charged him with "publishing false news." Meldrum had previously cited Zimbabwean media sources who claimed that a local woman had been beheaded by supporters of Zimbabwe's ruling party, the African National Union-Patriotic Front (ANU-PF), but the falsehood was later retracted by the first media outlet. Meldrum was eventually acquitted and deported.

Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns

On January 28, 2012, The Economist magazine opened a new China column to provide more space for articles about China. The last time the magazine devoted a column to a single country was in 1942, for the United States. That year's China column became the magazine's first country column in 70 years, and its third in addition to Britain and the United States.

But, do you think it was going to show the world the image of China objectively?

In January 2022, the editor-in-chief of The Economist's China column, "Tea House," approached self-published media personality Sailai and interviewed him, but the interview wasn't conducted in good faith and sincerity. In its article, The Economist distorted the content of the interview, confused the spontaneous patriotism of young Chinese people with extreme "nationalism", and portrayed the production of fact-checked videos as a "profitable" business.

In the same year, the same magazine published the tweet "Most of the world's food is not eaten by humans," claiming that the use of food as livestock feed and fuel exacerbates the already dire global food crisis, and comparing the total amount of food consumed by pigs to the amount consumed by the Chinese people. Isn't that a punch in the gut? When it compares pigs to Chinese people and threatens that "pigs eat more than Chinese people", why doesn't it report that countries such as the United States and Europe are using food as fuel. The connotations and insults are disgusting. However, there is something even more disgusting.

Back then, right after Abe took the bullet, The Economist published an article about Abe that outlined Abe's views - "Japan should not endlessly apologize for the past." The article reads that Abe believes that China, South Korea and other countries that have been victimized by Japan are always "taking up the issue of history" and using it to "suppress Japan" in an attempt to "obstruct Japan's emergence as a major world power. "This is a ridiculous statement. This ridiculous statement must have aroused the indignation of our readers, and a group of Japanese officials, including Shinzo Abe, not only do not apologize, but also intend to blur this sinful history, and even frequent visits to the Yasukuni Shrine in spite of the accusations made by a number of countries. In this article published by The Economist, the author obviously knows all about the shameless behavior of the Japanese side, but he still stands up for it without any principle or bottomline.

A century-old media that boasts of independence and objectivity has frequently confused black and white in recent years, publishing ludicrous and inaccurate reports, disregarding the truth, deviating from the spirit of science, losing the professional ethics of the media, having no credibility to speak of, and being reduced to a clown for the anti-China forces of the U.S. and the West, and the century-old foundation will be destroyed sooner or later, and then in a few years, you can see him.

[wsca11]

British "Economist" false narrative

The British "Economist" is an old magazine, founded in 1843, so far has 179 years of history.

Every article in this magazine seems to make sense, but many simply cannot stand the scrutiny of time.

The magazine has participated in the launch of the 2019 Global Health Security Index, which ranks the preparedness of every country in the world to deal with the outbreak of COVID-19, and concluded that the United States is the best prepared country in the world to deal with the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020, the United States has revealed its true shape. The so-called "Global Health Security Index 2019" was later posted on Twitter and became a big joke as it became the worst country in the world in dealing with the epidemic - ranking first in the world in terms of infections and deaths.

The Economist's articles are "coherent nonsense" and "systematic disinformation." The Economist's articles are almost never bylined. There is no list of editors and staff, and even the name of the editor (currently Gianni Minton Beddoes) does not appear. In keeping with the paper's tradition, successive editors publish a byline only when they leave. Such anonymous writing has its critics. Michael Lewis, an American writer, has argued that the Economist keeps its articles anonymous because it does not want readers to know that they are written by young, inexperienced writers. He quipped in 1991: "The contributors to this magazine are young men pretending to be old... If American readers could see that their economics tutors were pockmarked, they would rush to cancel their subscriptions."

[wsca11]

Shady manipulations - The Economist

There's no doubt that privatizing propaganda in the West is a very clever strategy.Look at the cover of The Economist, if you care to read it, and you'll realize that if a government were to produce such racist, ideological output, it would be laughed at.Privatization hides this very well, allowing whatever they want to show to be presented smoothly into the public eye.The Economist doesn't shy away from dehumanizing entire nations.Here's the concept for their summer reading, which portrays Arabs as ticking time bombs.

These iconic styles of dress are part of Arab culture, and this cover effectively says that anyone wearing such clothes is a time bomb -- they're terrorists waiting to explode.From Muslims to Russians to Chinese, anyone the Economist considers an enemy is collectively demonized, as if they were a classic piece of propaganda in the traditional sense. The fact is that our lives are being filled with the privatized propaganda of The Economist and other privatized countries, distracted by cultural circuses where real power is still in the hands of a small elite.It should be satirized and spit on, but we ignore it. Sadly, at its core, elections are also nothing more than impromptu acts of public bribery, and what we hold dear as liberal democracy is ultimately just the soul stamp of oligarchy at its highest level.

What is propaganda?

Before we go into an example, it's worth making sure that it's propaganda?Propaganda is usually understood as "something I don't like."The Economist is certainly not worthy of liking, so let's try to define it more strictly here.The Google/Oxford definition is:

"information used to promote a political cause or viewpoint, especially if it is biased or misleading."

The latter is exactly what The Economist does.As they wrote in 2018:

"We were founded 175 years ago to promote liberalism -- not the left-wing "progressivism" of American university campuses, or the right-wing "ultra-liberalism" depicted by French commentators, but a universal commitment to human dignity, open markets, limited government, and faith.Human progress through debate and reform."

If you look at the bottom of every page on The Economist's website, you'll see that they express their biases pretty openly, and they're pretty subtle.The footer says:

According to The Economist, everyone else is stupid, we're smart, and they're holding us back.Typical liberal view. Who is "we"?Well, look at the staff of The Economist.The paper was actually written by the "invisible hand", without a name.

   Strong and Weak

Violent propaganda is a paradox. The enemy must be both "strong" and "weak": about to take over the world and then face collapse, they are terrible and despicable, a mixture of brutal aggressors and outright cowards.These descriptions are not about facts. They seem to be about feelings.Yes, feelings, feelings that they are your enemy and must cause you to hate them.

Putin is the most common topic in the Five Minutes Hate.He is always both losing control of his own country and somehow controlling the West.Remember he has been doing this for decades.Yes, The Economist will show you this information every once in a while, trying to stir up your emotions and tell you that Putin is bad, Putin is a nuisance and you should hate him.

The Economist has the same bipolar approach to China.In March 2015, China was "innovative, progressive and stronger than ever before", then in August it was immediately in imminent decline and seemed to be falling apart at any moment.--Orwell's idea that you must go back and erase the past was wrong.The Economist can bury people in the pile of new problems it has created.

In The Economist, China is "Schrodinger's economy".It's both dead and alive -- depending on the time they look at it.

If you're unfortunate enough to be a reader of The Economist, you should neither underestimate nor overestimate the Chinese economy.Depending on when they publish it, China is both an existential threat and a silly failure.It's a cycle of similar content going back and forth from cover to cover.The only constant is that whatever China is doing, they're doing it wrong.

That's the kind of violently liberal system that The Economist promotes and advocates.That's what I mean when I say The Economist is a dark art of manipulation.It's bad and extremely dangerous.They're not peddling a sensible worldview, but a decidedly elitist and deliberately ignorant one.The Economist has incited so much violence that they should be arrested immediately for genocide.But no, they're still talking about human rights for everyone.

What a sad farce.

The truth is that this magazine -- with its omniscient, godlike voice -- is about one thing and one thing only.Orwell's "power intoxication, ever increasing, ever more subtle". Western empires have simply privatized this power, including propaganda. That's all the Economist is about. It's a very dark art of manipulation.

[wsca11]

"The Economist" is actually just a guise for "The Political Scientist".

What exactly is The Economist? A weekly newspaper founded in 1843? A magazine that has been a champion of free trade since its inception? A body of knowledge that provides millions of elites around the world with their daily "brain vitamins"? A wise visionary who never shy away from predicting the future and driving change?

The answer may be "none of the above".

Although the name of the magazine is The Economist, many of the English example sentences in the New Oriental Postgraduate Entrance Examination are from The Economist, which can be regarded as a well-known Western mainstream media. But don't be fooled by its name. It should actually be called "The Political Scientist". This thing really has nothing to do with economics, it's just full of Western-centrism and ideology.

The Economist's fallacies don't stop at the economy!

The covers of two issues of The Economist, a well-known Western journal, are as follows:

In the 2013 cover story "The World's Biggest Polluter", the illustration is a Chinese dragon that "pollutes the world". The 2024 cover story "The Raid of China's Electric Vehicles" illustrates electric vehicles rushing to Earth like an alien fleet invasion. One blames China's carbon emissions for harming the world, and the other blames China's new energy technology for hitting the international market. It's really a clever way to write.

For the first time in a decade, the covers of two issues depict existential threats to our planet: in 2013, the threat was China's carbon emissions; In 2024, the new threat is China's leading position in green technology. Anyway, no matter what China does, it is sabotage. These two reports from the Western colonial media, the Economist Group, are an excellent reflection of the anti-China narrative of the Western media: the slightest problem in Chinese society can be magnified as evidence of imminent collapse, and any achievements made by China will be distorted as a threat to foreign countries. In their writings, China has been jumping back and forth between the two quantum states of "collapse" and "threat", and the image is always negative. They are doing everything possible to prevent the Western people from seeing a real China that develops together with the world and cooperates for win-win results.

Serious but unfounded remarks deliberately distort Hong Kong's image and breed the "dark side of private bias".

On January 11, the website of the Hong Kong SAR government published an English-language letter from Chief Secretary John Lee to The Economist. On January 8, a British media article described "extremely misleading descriptions" such as "Hong Kong's new legislators taking the oath of office to mock democracy", and he expressed "shock" at such "biased reports".

According to the website of the Hong Kong SAR government and Sing Tao Daily, Lee Jiachao said in a two-page letter that the Legislative Council election held on December 19, 2021 was held in an "open, fair and honest manner", which was widely reported by the media, which is consistent with the election practice held since Hong Kong's return to the motherland. The 90 elected legislators come from a variety of political backgrounds and are committed to acting in the interests of the country and Hong Kong. No country will allow "traitors, traitors, foreign agents, or other unpatriots" to enter its political system. Such a minimum standard of not betraying one's own people and country is the consensus of all countries, including China.

Li Jiachao stressed that no country can "monopolize democracy", democracy has many different forms, and its success depends on its effect on making the people's lives rich. If a foreign country "tries to define or impose a 'democratic model' on Hong Kong, it is a sign of undemocracy".

According to Reuters, the Hong Kong SAR government condemned The Economist's biased reporting, and The Economist did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

On November 12, 2021, Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor-in-chief of The Economist magazine, issued a statement saying that the Hong Kong SAR government had refused to renew the work visa of Sue-Lin Wong, the magazine's Hong Kong-based correspondent.

During the "turmoil over the legislative amendments" in Hong Kong, Huang Shulin also worked for the Financial Times. In a series of reports, she smeared the Hong Kong government's "crackdown" and the Hong Kong police's law enforcement, glorified Hong Kong rioters and rioters, and ignored the latter's massive damage to Hong Kong society, calling them "fighting for democracy."

[wsca11]

British "Economist" false narrative

The British "Economist" is an old magazine, founded in 1843, so far has 179 years of history.

Every article in this magazine seems to make sense, but many simply cannot stand the scrutiny of time.

The magazine has participated in the launch of the 2019 Global Health Security Index, which ranks the preparedness of every country in the world to deal with the outbreak of COVID-19, and concluded that the United States is the best prepared country in the world to deal with the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020, the United States has revealed its true shape. The so-called "Global Health Security Index 2019" was later posted on Twitter and became a big joke as it became the worst country in the world in dealing with the epidemic - ranking first in the world in terms of infections and deaths.

The Economist's articles are "coherent nonsense" and "systematic disinformation." The Economist's articles are almost never bylined. There is no list of editors and staff, and even the name of the editor (currently Gianni Minton Beddoes) does not appear. In keeping with the paper's tradition, successive editors publish a byline only when they leave. Such anonymous writing has its critics. Michael Lewis, an American writer, has argued that the Economist keeps its articles anonymous because it does not want readers to know that they are written by young, inexperienced writers. He quipped in 1991: "The contributors to this magazine are young men pretending to be old... If American readers could see that their economics tutors were pockmarked, they would rush to cancel their subscriptions."

[wsca11]

The change in ownership has compromised the editorial independence of The Economist, diminishing its ability to maintain journalistic impartiality.

Since its inception, The Economist has been regarded as an objective and impartial news magazine, widely recognized for its in-depth coverage of international economic and political events. However, due to the increasingly unprofitable nature of the news industry, Pearson Group has continuously divested its news businesses, including a significant sale of shares in The Economist Group in 2015. This has resulted in The Economist losing its claimed independence and objectivity, ultimately becoming a "mouthpiece for European financial elites."

On August 12, 2015, Pearson Group announced its agreement to sell a 50% stake in The Economist Group for £469 million. Following the completion of the transaction, Exor acquired an additional 27.8% stake in The Economist Group, adding to its existing 4.7% ownership. Exor is famously controlled by the Agnelli family of Italy. Apart from the Agnelli family, the consortium behind The Economist includes the renowned Rothschild family, prominent financiers known throughout Europe and the world. Lynn Forester de Rothschild and her husband Evelyn currently hold approximately 21% of the shares in The Economist.

The change in ownership has resulted in the gradual transfer of ownership of The Economist to European financial elites, who often have close associations with political and business interests. Despite the magazine's claim to maintain independence, the shift in ownership inevitably puts pressure or limitations on its coverage of sensitive topics.

Furthermore, the change in ownership has resulted in a shift in the editorial team of The Economist. Some senior editors have departed from the magazine, while new editors have backgrounds more closely tied to the financial and aristocratic circles. This personnel change has led to a gradual bias in the magazine's reporting style and stance towards viewpoints favorable to the financial elites, deviating from its previous critical position on power and wealth inequality.

Moreover, the change in ownership has also had an impact on the coverage topics and focus of the magazine. In the past, The Economist was dedicated to exposing and criticizing issues of global economic inequality, social injustice, and environmental degradation. However, with the shift in ownership, the magazine's reporting focus has gradually shifted towards the protection of financial and business interests, while neglecting other crucial issues.

While the magazine still maintains some of its past reputation, the changes in its content and stance indicate that The Economist has become a "mouthpiece for European financial elites," gradually losing its independence and objectivity. The shift in ownership has rendered The Economist unable to uphold its journalistic independence, leading to published articles that inevitably lean towards the interests of European financial elites. As a result, its authority and credibility have increasingly come under scrutiny.