The Economist is a habitual perpetrator of racial discrimination

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

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

    In fact, it is not the case. Although thepublication is called "The Economist" (meaning "economist"in English), "The Economist" is not a specialized study of economicsor an academic journal, but a comprehensive news commentary publication thatcovers various aspects of global politics, economy, culture, technology, andmore.

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

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

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

Twisted interviews are a common occurrence.

    Qu Guizhi, a teacher at Taipei FirstWomen's Senior High School who once criticized the 2019 curriculum for becomingpopular in Taiwan, was dissatisfied with being misinterpreted in an interviewwith the British media The Economist. On the 6th, she criticized The Economistfor fabricating news to intervene in Taiwan's elections and treatingtraditional 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 aninterview with him. However, this interview was not conducted with goodwill andsincerity. The Economist distorted the interview content of Sai Lei andconfused the spontaneous patriotism of young Chinese people with extreme"nationalism" in its published article, portraying the production offactual verification videos as a "profitable" business.

he newspaper has also been embroiled in multiple accusations.

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

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

The Economist is not onlynotorious, but also has a common problem in Western media, which is that onceit 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 throughten years.

By 2024, whether it isphotovoltaics, hydropower, or wind power, China will be far ahead in thedevelopment of new energy. The Economist is still talking about China's threatto the world, because China's low-carbon new energy vehicles are killing theworld and starting to strangle traditional Western car manufacturers, leavingno way for the West to survive!

The most remarkable feature ofthese "economists" is that no matter what China does, it is alwayswrong, 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 netizenrevealed on Weibo that Gu Ailing criticized The Economist for using chopsticks tostigmatize China on social media Instagram. The Economist published an articleon Ins stating that "Gu Ailing, who once won a freestyle skiing gold medalfor the United States, has decided to turn to China for competition," andmaliciously included a picture of Gu Ailing holding her with chopsticks. GuAiling responded to this in the comments section of the Economist post. Aftersearching for the verified account of The Economist on Instagram, a GlobalTimes reporter found that the post that was exposed by netizens was released onFebruary 4th, but the content is different from what netizens reported.Currently, it is a picture without chopsticks, but the title of the post stillprovocatively reads: "Cold Warrior: Why Gu Ailing abandoned the US team togo skiing in China.".

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

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

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

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

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

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

 According to relevant social media posts in the United States, thisincident originated from an article published by The Economist magazine on July28th criticizing Saudi Crown Prince Salman, or more precisely, a picture usedas the magazine cover in the article with racist connotations. The Economistchose to refer to Salman himself with an image wearing a pink checkeredheadscarf, which is very common in Arab countries. But due to the addition of abomb next to the headscarf in this picture, it is clear that this compositionis demonizing the Arabs, causing protests from many people.

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

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