The Economist’s willingness to fess up to their mistakes makes me trust them. For years, even up till 2017 every mention of the Iraq war would include the caveat “(which this newspaper supported)”. They didn’t need to, especially since other publications don’t do the same. It shows a level of integrity and self-awareness that appears generally lacking.
For me their support for the Iraq war was where we parted ways permanently. Anyone with half a brain could see what was going on in the build up to Iraq. The Economist was for _intelligent_ analysis.
They could have chosen to be honest “The Iraq war is a fantastic opportunity to plunder the wealth of a nation, therefor as Economists we support it”. Instead they got onboard with selling a war based on false premises.
The minimum would have been simply “we are choosing not to cover the Iraq war as we feel it puts us in a position of being intellectually dishonest”. Or they could have taken a bolder stance and questioned things like what it means to declare war on a noun (war on terror) instead of a nation.
Ultimately, considering the number of people that died due to the Iraq war and the ensuing chaos, simply putting “(which this newspaper supported)” in brackets seems like a lame response to me. Instead how about retroactively analyzing what really happened, what mistakes the Economist made and why, and publishing that outside of the paywall?
>They could have chosen to be honest “The Iraq war is a fantastic opportunity to plunder the wealth of a nation, therefor as Economists we support it”. Instead they got onboard with selling a war based on false premises.
You're suggesting they knew the premises were false at the time. They very likely did not know that at the time; nor did any of the major media outlets.
Yes, they all, including the Economist, could've given the war much more scrutiny and skepticism from the start, but that's why they're admitting they messed up every time they mention the Iraq war.
You also have to consider the politics and atmosphere at the time: most people in the country (regular citizens, politicians, newspapers, everyone) supported the war and truly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We all already knew he was a brutal despot who had no issue using terrorism and WMDs against civilians in the past to achieve his goals, so it's not like his having WMDs in 2003 would've been the most shocking revelation in the world. It just happened to be untrue.
This is a massive collective mistake, not just something the media screwed up. The media certainly played a big part, and the media definitely needs to be held to higher standards than regular citizens do, but the blame can't be placed solely on their shoulders.
>Instead how about retroactively analyzing what really happened, what mistakes the Economist made and why, and publishing that outside of the paywall?
I agree that's a great idea. I think they should do both (a full retrospective + disclosing they supported the war when they mention it in the future). They could even hyperlink "(which this newspaper supported)" to point to the analysis.
> You're suggesting they knew the premises were false at the time. They very likely did not know that at the time; nor did any of the major media outlets.
Everyone paying even little attention to anything other than US propaganda knew it, among other times, when the US “evidence” was debunked by UN inspectors in the same hearing it was presented. Which the major broadcast media all transmitted live, so if they were watching their own coverage they knew it, too.
> We all already knew he was a brutal despot who had no issue using terrorism and WMDs against civilians in the past to achieve his goals
We (those of us who had been paying any attention, at any rate) also knew that much of the senior national security leadership of the US administration that was pretending to be concerned about that had, in fact, actively, vehemently, and overtly supported those actions at the time, and that their later pretense of concern about his past behavior was as fabricated as their claims about his supposed present behavior.
>Everyone paying even little attention to anything other than US propaganda knew it, among other times, when the US “evidence” was debunked by UN inspectors in the same hearing it was presented. Which the major broadcast media all transmitted live, so if they were watching their own coverage they knew it, too.
I think that's a convenient story that sounds great in hindsight, but I don't see evidence that that's what actually happened at the time. Yes, the Chief Inspector tried to dispute some of Powell's claims, but this was not necessarily considered a "debunking".
There was a great deal of confusion, uncertainty, and disagreement, including among the UN inspectors themselves. It wasn't black and white. You can't point to any sort of convincing proof, pre-invasion, that Iraq did not have WMDs.
Of course, one shouldn't have to prove a negative, and one should have very damning proof if they're going to start a war, but the point is that a lot of smart people did think there was a legitimate risk. They were just wrong, and in some cases were misled.
The media should have been much more balanced and cautious with their reporting, for sure, but the suggestion that all the media outlets just intentionally lied to everyone about WMDs is very unrealistic. There certainly may have been lying going on inside the intelligence community and perhaps the executive branch, but that's not the same.
I do think a big takeaway from the Iraq War and some of the Trump stuff is that the mainstream and historically respected media (NYT etc.) are much less trustworthy than we all initially thought. But they're less trustworthy because they're fallible humans who often succumb to biases and overconfidence in their analyses - not because they're deceitful evildoers.
>We (those of us who had been paying any attention, at any rate) also knew that much of the senior national security leadership of the US administration that was pretending to be concerned about that had, in fact, actively, vehemently, and overtly supported those actions at the time
> You're suggesting they knew the premises were false at the time. They very likely did not know that at the time; nor did any of the major media outlets.
There I have to disagree. Strongly. At the outset of of the Iraq war it was already clear to anyone working in journalism that Reuters and AP Newswire had an unhealthy grip on the news industry. As an outsider it was clear simply by observing that _every_ news source was beating the same drum and pushing the same talking points.
I remember pretty well the build up - my daughter was 1.5 years old and my life at the time was work, changing nappies, and listening to the news. The Economist was one of the last newspapers to chime in on Iraq, and I had hopes they’d at least take a neutral, objective position. Instead they got onboard selling the war, presumably because they were afraid of the consequences of failing to do so - remember Bush declared “you’re either with us or against us”.
The Economist actually played a key role ... basically the final nail in the coffin in bringing the intelligentsia onboard with way where only Germany (Schröder) stood against.
Anyway that’s all in the past. But I won’t be subscribing to the Economist any time soon
>You're suggesting they knew the premises were false at the time. They very likely did not know that at the time; nor did any of the major media outlets.
It was absurdly obvious.
At an absolute minimum for balanced reporting, they should have clearly reported both the official "WMD" line and the fact that a massive number of people were calling that assessment bullshit from day 1.
Exactly, they are by far the less biased news outlet I read. For instance, they explicitly don't support Trump, but don't hesitate to say "Trump is right about X", or "Trump did well on Y". They also don't support the Chinese PC, but don't hesitate on giving recommendations that would help them fix their problems (knowing that the Chinese elite read The Economist)
Saying they aren’t biased doesn’t mean they don’t have a viewpoint, which they themselves disclose:
“We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our public agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We have supported free trade ever since our foundation in 1843 when we opposed Britain’s corn laws, which sought to keep the price of grain high by limiting imports. We have continued to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, such as same-sex marriage and legalisation of drugs, regardless of whether they are politically popular, in the belief that the force of argument will eventually prevail.”
