The Economist continues with its anti-Russian campaign

[Локи]

Current issue's cover image:

http://media.economist.com/images/20090704/2709LD1.jpg

Article:

Welcome to Moscow (http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=13944748)

Jul 2nd 2009
From The Economist print edition

Paranoid, mischievous and heading in the wrong direction, Russia is an awkward prospect for Barack Obama

THE last time Barack Obama was in Russia, he and Senator Dick Lugar were detained by border guards for several hours at an airport in the Urals, where they were looking at how American funds were helping to get rid of stocks of dangerous Soviet-era weapons. America’s president has every reason to hope things will go better this time, but that is not setting a very high hurdle for success. Of all the great power relationships Mr Obama inherited from George Bush, Russia is the most awkward—awkward not only because it has been getting ever harder to deal with but also because it cannot be ignored.

Over the past ten years, under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, Russia has become more nationalistic, corrupt and corporatist. Its economy, although much bigger than a decade ago, is even more dependent on oil and gas, an industry now controlled by a small group of kleptocratic courtiers and former spies. The decision by Ikea, a well-known Swedish furniture supplier once bullish about Russia, to suspend investment because of graft is an indictment of the dire commercial climate (see article). Its non-energy exports are smaller than Sweden’s.

More ... (http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=13944748)

================================================== ======

The Economist articles about Russia are always insulting, belittling and mocking Russia. I've been following this campaign of theirs for years now. It's appalling. :mad:

The Economist is not a respectable magazine -- it's a filthy rag with a nasty political agenda.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Yes, the Economist is a vile internationalist rag.

[Vulpix]

The Economist is not a respectable magazine -- it's a filthy rag with a nasty political agenda.

It is harder to find one that isn't.

[Локи]

It is harder to find one that isn't.

Yes, but some are more so than others - and not all have deliberate campaigns of misinformation and smear. Economist has. I bet they have a dedicated anti-Russian propagandist research desk. :rolleyes:

[Vulpix]

Yes, but some are more so than others - and not all have deliberate campaigns of misinformation and smear. Economist has. I bet they have a dedicated anti-Russian propagandist research desk. :rolleyes:

Misinformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation) means wrong information spread undeliberately. The correct term would be disinformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation).

[Локи]

Misinformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation) means wrong information spread undeliberately. The correct term would be disinformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation).

Thanks, one is never too old to learn.

[SwordoftheVistula]

All of the British media is pretty bad, but I've found The Economist and the Financial Times to be the best in terms of quality of writings and articles. Just because it's critical of Russia doesn't mean it's bad

[Локи]

All of the British media is pretty bad, but I've found The Economist and the Financial Times to be the best in terms of quality of writings and articles. Just because it's critical of Russia doesn't mean it's bad

Economist's articles are strongly biased and do not offer any kind of impartiality. It's a political tool that aims to direct the reader's mind into a certain way of thinking. There is nothing special about the articles either. The magazine cover and format look glossy and respectable, but the content is substandard.

Another interesting thing worthy of note, is that all Economist articles are anonymous. They do not reveal the author's names. I suspect it's a cabal. I used to work with a Jewish guy, who told me that all he wants to know about world affairs, he gets from Economist. He was very open about his seething hatred of Russian people too.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Economist's articles are strongly biased and do not offer any kind of impartiality. It's a political tool that aims to direct the reader's mind into a certain way of thinking. There is nothing special about the articles either. The magazine cover and format look glossy and respectable, but the content is substandard.

Another interesting thing worthy of note, is that all Economist articles are anonymous. They do not reveal the author's names. I suspect it's a cabal. I used to work with a Jewish guy, who told me that all he wants to know about world affairs, he gets from Economist. He was very open about his seething hatred of Russian people too.

Most media organs are have that same bias, just saying on a comparative scale, the Economist and the Financial Times are the best publications in Britain, and better than most American major publications except possibly the Wall Street Journal. I find the articles well written instead of the usual celebs and interviews of refugees, 'oh look a new pump installed in a random village in Africa'

As regards Russia, it's still a mess in objective terms, we in nationalist circles give them props for having massive skinhead gangs and riot police who bust up gay pride parades, but we can't seriously expect any mainstream media organization is going to give them the benefit of the doubt for this.

[Локи]

Most media organs are have that same bias, just saying on a comparative scale, the Economist and the Financial Times are the best publications in Britain, and better than most American major publications except possibly the Wall Street Journal. I find the articles well written instead of the usual celebs and interviews of refugees, 'oh look a new pump installed in a random village in Africa'


Well I am of exactly the opposite view. Wall Street Journal is in a different class.



we in nationalist circles give them props for having massive skinhead gangs and riot police who bust up gay pride parades, but we can't seriously expect any mainstream media organization is going to give them the benefit of the doubt for this.

Oh come on, you cannot be serious with that comment.

[RoyBatty]

The Economist is famous for touting itself as a "classy" publication but it's probably held in higher esteem in the US than it is in the UK. While it's fair to say that there isn't such a thing as a completely impartial media the Economist's BS is in a different league altogether. They're a propaganda publication who don't even try to present an honest or accurate picture of the topics they write and comment on.

Their sole aim and purpose is to push the agenda of their typically well-heeled readership / membership which is usually to assume control over global politicians, resources and industries not yet under their collective control. It's a mafia rag for the mafia of the elites.