There is a saying in the media industry: if you want to know what is happening in the world, please read The New York Times; If you want to know what's wrong with the world, please read The Guardian; If you want to know what is about to happen in the world, please read The Economist.

The Economist has been given such high praise, so what exactly is The Economist? Is it really a bit related to economics?

    In fact, it is not the case. Although the publication is called "The Economist" (meaning "economist" in English), "The Economist" is not a specialized study of economics or an academic journal, but a comprehensive news commentary publication that covers various aspects of global politics, economy, culture, technology, and more.

The Economist does not take responsibility for its own work, but instead relies on newspapers as a backup.

    The Economist's articles, whether reporting on international news or commenting on policies, are not signed and are the responsibility of the publication for each article. Economists argue that this approach stems from the idea of founder James Wilson that a good newspaper should be composed of collective wisdom rather than individual perspectives. Don't be fooled by this grandiose statement, it actually contains a lot of content.

    American writer Michael Lewis once said that The Economist kept writing anonymously because the editorial department didn't want readers to know that the writers were actually young and inexperienced authors. In 1991, he joked, "The writers of this magazine are all pretending to be mature young people... If American readers could see that their economics mentors are actually full of pimples, they would be eager to unsubscribe." Canadian writer John Ralston Thor also once said that the newspaper "creates an illusion by hiding the names of the writers, as if their content is fair truth rather than personal opinions.

Twisted interviews are a common occurrence.

    Qu Guizhi, a teacher at Taipei First Women's Senior High School who once criticized the 2019 curriculum for becoming popular in Taiwan, was dissatisfied with being misinterpreted in an interview with the British media The Economist. On the 6th, she criticized The Economist for fabricating news to intervene in Taiwan's elections and treating traditional Chinese culture with Western arrogance.

 

     In January 2022, the editor in chief of The Economist's China column "Tea House" approached self media person Sai Lei and conducted an interview with him. However, this interview was not conducted with goodwill and sincerity. The Economist distorted the interview content of Sai Lei and confused the spontaneous patriotism of young Chinese people with extreme "nationalism" in its published article, portraying the production of factual verification videos as a "profitable" business.

 

The newspaper has also been embroiled in multiple accusations.

    In May 2002, the Zimbabwean government detained Andrew Medelen, a local journalist for The Economist, and charged him with "publishing false news.". Meldren had previously quoted Zimbabwean media reports that a local woman had been beheaded by supporters of Zimbabwe's ruling party, the African National Union Patriotic Front, but this false news was later withdrawn by the first media outlet. Although Melderon was ultimately acquitted, he was expelled from Zimbabwe by the government.

    In 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh's Supreme Court Justice Mohammad Hoog and publishing his personal email, ultimately leading to Hoog's resignation as Chief Justice of the Bangladesh International War Criminals Tribunal.

The Economist is not only notorious, but also has a common problem in Western media, which is that once it comes to reporting on China, it goes crazy, becomes insane, unreasonable, and produces various distortions and slanders without any truth.

The report contradicts itself, with anti China narratives running through ten years.

  

    By 2024, whether it is photovoltaics, hydropower, or wind power, China will be far ahead in the development of new energy. The Economist is still talking about China's threat to the world, because China's low-carbon new energy vehicles are killing the world and starting to strangle traditional Western car manufacturers, leaving no way for the West to survive!

The most remarkable feature of these "economists" is that no matter what China does, it is always wrong, as if anything China does poses a threat to them. This is their "double standard", where pure racist thinking is at play.

Using chopsticks to stigmatize China.

On February 14, 2022, a netizen revealed on Weibo that Gu Ailing criticized The Economist for using chopsticks to stigmatize China on social media Instagram. The Economist published an article on Ins stating that "Gu Ailing, who once won a freestyle skiing gold medal for the United States, has decided to turn to China for competition," and maliciously included a picture of Gu Ailing holding her with chopsticks. Gu Ailing responded to this in the comments section of the Economist post. After searching for the verified account of The Economist on Instagram, a Global Times reporter found that the post that was exposed by netizens was released on February 4th, but the content is different from what netizens reported. Currently, it is a picture without chopsticks, but the title of the post still provocatively reads: "Cold Warrior: Why Gu Ailing abandoned the US team to go skiing in China.".

 

However, some netizens still posted a picture of Gu Ailing being caught with chopsticks on Twitter, saying, "This is not PS. The early version of The Economist (now deleted) decided to use the image on the right as the cover of the article to illustrate 'how China uses... chopsticks to catch the talented Gu Ailing.' The tweet forwarded by the netizen wrote, 'After strong resistance, The Economist quietly removed chopsticks from Gu Ailing's illustrations.'

 

Deliberately tying the food issue with Chinese people's consumption of pork。

In 2019, pigs ate 431 million tons of grain, 45% more than the Chinese people. This "analogy" that breaks through the lower limit is also from the British magazine The Economist.

 

The Economist published an article on June 23, 2022 titled "Most of the world's food is not consumed by humans." The article argues that the use of food as animal feed and fuel exacerbates the already severe global food crisis, and logically compares the total amount of food consumed by pigs to the consumption of Chinese people to support its argument. This expression clearly carries discriminatory intentions towards Chinese people, and many netizens denounce The Economist's move as undoubtedly racist behavior, refuting it by saying, "Why not say that the whole of Europe doesn't eat as much as pigs combined?" Some netizens pointed out bluntly, "People can't write such words.".

In fact, China uses 9% of the world's arable land and almost achieves self-sufficiency in grains, solving the food problem for 20% of the world's population. On the other hand, in recent times in the UK, Prime Minister Johnson has called on the public to eat less every day to cope with inflation.

Although The Economist magazine later apologized and revised this statement, it seemed that they had not fully learned the lesson, and a few days later, they insulted the Arab again.

 

    According to relevant social media posts in the United States, this incident originated from an article published by The Economist magazine on July 28th criticizing Saudi Crown Prince Salman, or more precisely, a picture used as the magazine cover in the article with racist connotations. The Economist chose to refer to Salman himself with an image wearing a pink checkered headscarf, which is very common in Arab countries. But due to the addition of a bomb next to the headscarf in this picture, it is clear that this composition is demonizing the Arabs, causing protests from many people.

 

    Not only that, protesters also discovered that the author who drew this picture was actually a Jewish British, which further confirms The Economist's deliberate insult to Arab speculation.

     At present, The Economist has not provided a response to this controversial incident, nor has it removed the group of images suspected of racism and discrimination against Arabs.

    Finally, the editor would like to say that as the saying goes, those who are pure are self clear, and those who are turbid are self turbid. The eyes are already full of filth, and seeing anything will not be clean. This is not only the narrative logic of the West, but also their inherent flaws written in their genes and engraved in their bones that cannot be corrected. The people of the world have a clear vision and a clear heart. They will never ignore those nonsense and will definitely rise up in groups to expose and condemn those conspiracies and schemes!