The Economist editorial stance

The Economist was first published in September 1843 by James Wilson to “take part in ‘a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress.’” This phrase is quoted on the newspaper's contents page.

Background

When the newspaper was founded, the term “economism” denoted what would today be termed fiscal conservatism. The Economist generally supports economic liberalism, that is it supports free markets, and opposes socialism. It is in favour of globalisation. Economic liberalism is generally associated with the right, especially outside the United States, but is now favoured by some traditionally left-wing parties, especially the British Labour Party. It also supports social liberalism, which is often seen as left-wing, especially in the United States. This contrast derives in part from The Economist's roots in classical liberalism, disfavouring government interference in either social or economic activity. According to editor Bill Emmot "The Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative"[1]. In modern terms its stance has traces of libertarianism. However, the views taken by individual contributors are quite diverse.

Support

The Economist has endorsed both Labour and the Conservative Party in recent British elections, and both Republican and Democratic candidates in the United States.

In policy terms, The Economist has supported:

• gay marriage [2]: "Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have [...]?"
• legal prostitution [3]: "People should be allowed to buy and sell whatever they like, including their own bodies."
• legalizing drugs such as marijuana
• reducing agricultural subsidies in developed nations
• turning Britain into a republic. (October 1994)
• 2003 war in Iraq
• mass immigration into western countries (see, for example, the March 11, 2000 and July 2005 issues, among others)
• stronger gun control laws in the United States [4]
• Turkey's application for membership of the European Union
• space exploration by private organisations such as Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne, instead of by NASA or the ESA
• regulation by governments where an efficient market cannot or does not exist (e.g. environmental)
• charitable donations by private individuals and governments but condemns most financial charity by companies as "borrowed virtue" (e.g. they support the fact that Bill Gates, not Microsoft, is the world's most charitable non-governmental body)
• education vouchers

Opposition

The Economist has opposed:

• the death penalty
• affirmative action
• the 35-hour workweek
• the establishment of a minimum wage in Britain
• the economic policies of Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez
• the election and policies of Silvio Berlusconi
• the European Constitution

A history of The Economist by the editors of Economist.com puts it this way:

What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? “It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position.” That is as true today as when former Economist editor Geoffrey Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage. [5]

In one of its more speculative pieces, the newspaper also supported voluntary human extinction at an unspecified future time. [6]

Criticism

The Economist has often been criticized for its elitist editorial policy, catering to its reading public mostly composed of wealthy and influential individuals or aspiring social climbers. Acording to a survey published on the May/June 1993 edition of the Columbia Journalism Review ("The Americanization of The Economist") [7], its American readers were the "most affluent of any general circulation or business periodical in the country, with average household incomes of $ 198,000 and an average net worth of $ 1,481,000".

Tone and Voice

The Economist does not print bylines identifying the authors of articles. In their own words[8], "It is written anonymously, because it is a paper whose collective voice and personality matter more than the identities of individual journalists."

The editorial staff of the Economist enforces a very uniform tone of voice throughout the magazine[9]. It values dry, understated wit and precise[10] use of language[11] (it is very British this way). The magazine assumes its readers are sophisticated and articulate. It does not explain terms like invisible hand, macroeconomics or demand curve, but it will take 6 or 7 words to explain the Theory of Comparative Advantage. The magazine usually does not translates short french quotes or phrases, and sentences in greek are not uncommon (although they are translated).

The Economist does not just report about financial and economic subjects. It strives to be well rounded, reporting on culture, language, literature, art, science, etc. It is careful to hire writers and editors who are well versed in these subjects and never makes the kind of discrediting mistakes which are particularly common in popularized science reporting.

In the Letters section (letters to the editor), the editors choose an odd or ridiculous letter to appear last. One notable example simply asked "What is the idiot's corner and how can I get published there?". (The last letter appears in the bottom-right corner of the printed page.)

Endorsements

Like many newspapers, The Economist occasionally uses its pages to endorse candidates in upcoming major elections. In the past, the magazine has endorsed:

• Bill Clinton, Democrat (U.S. presidential election, 1992)
• Bob Dole, Republican (U.S. presidential election, 1996)
• Conservative Party, led by John Major (United Kingdom general election, 1997): “Labour doesn't deserve it” [12]
• George W. Bush, Republican (U.S. presidential election, 2000), after John McCain was defeated in the Republican primaries. At the time, the newspaper believed George W. Bush could transcend partisanship, but now the newspaper describes him as the "partisan-in-chief."
• Michael Bloomberg, Republican (New York City mayoral election, 2001): “The Economist would shudder and pull the lever for Mr Bloomberg” [13]
• Labour Party, led by Tony Blair (United Kingdom general election, 2001): “Vote conservative” [14]
• Christian Democratic Union, led by Edmund Stoiber (German legislative election, 2002): "Time for a change" [15]
• Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican (2003 California recall), though the magazine was strongly opposed to the recall itself
• Ken Livingstone, Labour (London mayoral election, 2004)
• Liberal-National coalition, led by John Howard (Australian legislative election, 2004); had opposed Howard's bid for a third term in 2001
• John Kerry, Democrat (U.S. presidential election, 2004): “The incompetent [George W. Bush] or the incoherent [John Kerry]?” [16]
• Labour Party, led by Tony Blair (United Kingdom general election, 2005): “There is no alternative (alas)” [17]