It is true that I disagree with some of the right-wing framings, but I don't object on that account. I've never entirely agreed with The Economist, but that hasn't kept me from enjoying it and finding it useful.
But the US right has from my perspective gone insane. Take as an example the belief that Trump won the 2020 election. A majority of Republicans (and only Republicans, not independents, Democrats, or people outside the US) believe that Joe Biden did not legitimately win: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/07/republica...
And unfortunately, it's not confined to the US. From Boris Johnson to Jair Bolsonaro to Viktor Orban and well beyond, there are a lot of politicians on the right who you can't really call conservative in that they, like Trump, have repudiated a lot of traditional conservative values like honesty, accuracy, and integrity.
My problem is that the Economist, whose tone for me has always been one of cool reason, whose founding goal was "to take part in 'a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress,'" is letting the crazy leak in.
As I said, it's a hard problem to stay balanced in unbalanced times, so I have sympathy for them. But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend the problem doesn't exist.
The Economist has repeatedly and emphatically rejected the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. I'm really not seeing any "crazy leak in". Pretty much all "crazy" views I can think of the Economist rejects vigorously.
And it absolutely accepts that climate change is real, human caused, and needs to be addressed, which at least in the US is not the standard right-wing opinion.
> But the US right has from my perspective gone insane. Take as an example the belief that Trump won the 2020 election. A majority of Republicans (and only Republicans, not independents, Democrats, or people outside the US) believe that Joe Biden did not legitimately win: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/07/republica...
I think both parties have gone insane and have been there for many years. The US system has been unbalanced and wobbly for years. While the problem is much worse on the right as of late, the corrosion of our electoral system is strong and alive on the left as well. The incoming House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries repeatedly said that the election was stolen by Trump and that his presidency is illegitimate. [0] Honestly, this tweet written by Jeffries reads exactly like an unhinged Trump Twitter rant. [1] The claims that the election was stolen was repeated publicly by Hillary Clinton, then the defacto leader of the party. Going further back, there are Democrats who still say that the election was stolen from Al Gore, which is a ridiculous claim. To be clear, Trump takes these assaults on our democratic institutions to an entirely different level and breadth, but let's look at this from both sides instead of asserting that it's just one side.
> And unfortunately, it's not confined to the US. From Boris Johnson to Jair Bolsonaro to Viktor Orban and well beyond, there are a lot of politicians on the right who you can't really call conservative in that they, like Trump, have repudiated a lot of traditional conservative values like honesty, accuracy, and integrity.
> My problem is that the Economist, whose tone for me has always been one of cool reason, whose founding goal was "to take part in 'a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress,'" is letting the crazy leak in.
I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. It honestly makes me wonder if you've actually read The Economist in the past 7 years.
The Economist is very critical of Boris Johnson - their latest articles on him include "The tragedy of Boris Johnson", "Boris Johnson should go immediately" and "Clownfall: Britain after Boris".
Recent pieces on Jair Bolsonaro include "The enduring threat of Jair Bolsonaro", "Win or lose, Jair Bolsonaro poses a threat to Brazilian democracy" and "President Jair Bolsonaro is bad for Brazil's economy".
On Viktor Orban they say "Viktor Orban's victory is a triumph for illiberal nationalism", "How Viktor Orban hollowed out Hungary's democracy".
On Trump I won't even begin. Almost no publication has been more harshly critical of Trump.
So your claim that The Economist is determined to "both-sides" every discussion doesn't hold any water at all to me. The Economist has always had an open and transparent editorial position and they write to that position. They are not interested in promoting the views of extremists or crazies on either side. If you have such an example I would be keen to hear it.
> I also see right-wing framings creeping into pieces more often than before.
There we go, you think its worse because it doesn't 100% cater to your views.