Comments on: White smoke at the Economist http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: John Faughnan http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149404 John Faughnan Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:06:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149404 I want to know who wrote #20 above. I came to precisely the same conclusion in my blop posting. The years from 1986 to 1996 were superb. They started ailing around 1996 and fell off a cliff @2001. The humor, the self-deprecation, the perspective -- it died. All too often they echo the OpEd pages of the WSJ. True, they ended up endorsing Kerry over Bush -- but by then anything else would have been preposterous. What did them in? What led to Lexington 2005? I'd guess it was the strategic decision to dumb down for the US market and cozy up to the WSJ. It made them tons of money but cost their soul. I've substitute The Atlantic and Scientific American and maybe Newsweek. It's the end of a 20 year subscription, I won't renew after my last issue in September. I want to know who wrote #20 above. I came to precisely the same conclusion in my blop posting. The years from 1986 to 1996 were superb. They started ailing around 1996 and fell off a cliff @2001. The humor, the self-deprecation, the perspective—it died. All too often they echo the OpEd pages of the WSJ. True, they ended up endorsing Kerry over Bush—but by then anything else would have been preposterous.

What did them in? What led to Lexington 2005? I’d guess it was the strategic decision to dumb down for the US market and cozy up to the WSJ. It made them tons of money but cost their soul.

I’ve substitute The Atlantic and Scientific American and maybe Newsweek. It’s the end of a 20 year subscription, I won’t renew after my last issue in September.

]]> By: Uncle Kvetch http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149339 Uncle Kvetch Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:58:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149339 <i>I am talking about sayng that there is no moral difference between a liberal democracy like US and Nazi Germany. The claim is not ” on some dimention there is no difference ” but rather they are morally indistinguishable .This can be characterised as the official CT position because when it is expressed on daily bases here it receives a tacit approval.</i> I want a cite of this. No, actually, I want <i>several</i> cites, let's say at least three, from <i>consecutive days</i> (since it's said on a "daily basis"), of someone saying "the US and Nazi Germany are morally indistinguishable in every way," and being totally ignored. Put up or shut up, Zdenek. And we'll just set to one side the patently ridiculous notion that when bloggers don't explicitly smack down offensive views in their comment section, they are expressing their "tacit approval" of those views. That one's too silly to even bother rebutting. And as long as I'm here: What in God's name do you get out of reading this blog, given that you're convinced that it's populated entirely by moral midgets? Do you enjoy being enraged on a daily basis? Or do you just enjoy being smug? I've got a hunch which it is, but I'll let you enlighten us. I am talking about sayng that there is no moral difference between a liberal democracy like US and Nazi Germany. The claim is not ” on some dimention there is no difference ” but rather they are morally indistinguishable .This can be characterised as the official CT position because when it is expressed on daily bases here it receives a tacit approval.

I want a cite of this. No, actually, I want several cites, let’s say at least three, from consecutive days (since it’s said on a “daily basis”), of someone saying “the US and Nazi Germany are morally indistinguishable in every way,” and being totally ignored. Put up or shut up, Zdenek.

And we’ll just set to one side the patently ridiculous notion that when bloggers don’t explicitly smack down offensive views in their comment section, they are expressing their “tacit approval” of those views. That one’s too silly to even bother rebutting.

And as long as I’m here: What in God’s name do you get out of reading this blog, given that you’re convinced that it’s populated entirely by moral midgets? Do you enjoy being enraged on a daily basis? Or do you just enjoy being smug? I’ve got a hunch which it is, but I’ll let you enlighten us.

]]> By: eliza dashwood http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149315 eliza dashwood Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:02:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149315 “Ms. Dashwood, it might not have occurred to you, but 95% of all non-purchase decisions are based on the preconceived notion that the product will probably not be worth the expense. (The other 5% are forgone repeat purchases which are based on the first-hand knowledge that the product sucked.) If the Economist is worried about losing Henry it can always extend an offer for a number of free issues post editor change. This is the way things are handled in a free market economy.” No, OGMB, it didn’t occur to me because I don’t have the slightest idea where on earth you got those numbers from and what they represent. First of all, what is a “non-purchase” decision? I have money and I want to spend it, but I won’t buy that because I don’t think it’s worth it? Or is it, I’d really like that but I’m a bit short of money so I don’t think it’s worth it under these circumstances? The numbers you cite are 100% meaningless without the context (assuming there is any). I don’t recall mentioning anything about the Economist being worried about losing Henry as a subscriber. There would have to be a whole lot of canceling Henrys before that happened. And if such a scenario does indeed emerge, I’m sure the Economist will take note of the free market preferences of its readers. “Ms. Dashwood, it might not have occurred to you, but 95% of all non-purchase decisions are based on the preconceived notion that the product will probably not be worth the expense. (The other 5% are forgone repeat purchases which are based on the first-hand knowledge that the product sucked.)
If the Economist is worried about losing Henry it can always extend an offer for a number of free issues post editor change. This is the way things are handled in a free market economy.”

No, OGMB, it didn’t occur to me because I don’t have the slightest idea where on earth you got those numbers from and what they represent. First of all, what is a “non-purchase” decision? I have money and I want to spend it, but I won’t buy that because I don’t think it’s worth it? Or is it, I’d really like that but I’m a bit short of money so I don’t think it’s worth it under these circumstances? The numbers you cite are 100% meaningless without the context (assuming there is any).

I don’t recall mentioning anything about the Economist being worried about losing Henry as a subscriber. There would have to be a whole lot of canceling Henrys before that happened. And if such a scenario does indeed emerge, I’m sure the Economist will take note of the free market preferences of its readers.

]]> By: des von bladet http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149300 des von bladet Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:30:33 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149300 <i>Selection criteria seems to be defined by how much something has been hyped. </i> That's the right criterion for their audience for much of the time. They will -- quite reasonably -- want to be briefed on the stuff everyone's talking about. Selection criteria seems to be defined by how much something has been hyped.

That’s the right criterion for their audience for much of the time. They will—quite reasonably—want to be briefed on the stuff everyone’s talking about.

]]> By: Cian http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149291 Cian Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:17:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149291 The problem with the Economist tech section is that their criteria for inclusion seems to be made by people who aren't competent to evaluate the true importance/relevance of the things that they are covering. Selection criteria seems to be defined by how much something has been hyped. I guess this makes them no worse than Wired, but then Wired isn't a serious publication. The problem with the Economist tech section is that their criteria for inclusion seems to be made by people who aren’t competent to evaluate the true importance/relevance of the things that they are covering. Selection criteria seems to be defined by how much something has been hyped. I guess this makes them no worse than Wired, but then Wired isn’t a serious publication.

]]> By: zdenek http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149288 zdenek Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:13:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149288 john -- agreed but that is not the type of comparisons I have in mind . I am talking about sayng that there is no moral difference between a liberal democracy like US and Nazi Germany. The claim is not " on some dimention there is no difference " but rather they are morally indistinguishable .This can be characterised as the official CT position because when it is expressed on daily bases here it receives a tacit approval. john—agreed but that is not the type of comparisons I have in mind . I am talking about sayng that there is no moral difference between a liberal democracy like US and Nazi Germany. The claim is not ” on some dimention there is no difference ” but rather they are morally indistinguishable .This can be characterised as the official CT position because when it is expressed on daily bases here it receives a tacit approval.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149286 John Quiggin Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:50:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149286 A hint, zdenek. Saying "A's behaviour is no better than B's", where B is admittedly bad, isn't relativism, it's a condemnation of A. As for postmodernism, next thing you'll be saying we're soft on Republicans, or on trolls. A hint, zdenek. Saying “A’s behaviour is no better than B’s”, where B is admittedly bad, isn’t relativism, it’s a condemnation of A.

As for postmodernism, next thing you’ll be saying we’re soft on Republicans, or on trolls.

]]> By: zdenek http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149278 zdenek Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:59 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149278 henry- the criticism is not that you or say Chris B hold explicitly postmodernist views but rather that you give pass to them. So you indirectly promote them when your responces to commenters who are moral or epistemological relativists dont register where you stand. One of the commonest views thrown around CT is that there is no difference between western democracies and totalitarian regimes ; that Iran or nazi Germany occupies same moral space as US and so on . What is your reaction to such views ? You approve of them because you never criticise them . What has this to do with PM ? One of the core doctrines of PM is perspectivism and moral relativism ( see Chris Bertrams post on cartoon dispute which defends moral relativism )and this is what underwrites most debates on CT ( see for instance the recent discusion of conspiracy thinking on the left ). Again tacit approval because only lazy discussion of what is wrong with conspiracy theories . So what ? Well at minimum you have a problem with consistency : if you are concerned with maintaining intellectual standards why give pass to bullshit in your daily dealings with it ? But more important is the worry others have voiced : if you adopt Rortyan attitute to truth and see it as a type of supperstition how can you carry out the traditional left program viz. redusing inequality and reducing exploitation ? After all effort like that presuposes that we can distinguish right and wrong , no ? henry- the criticism is not that you or say Chris B hold explicitly postmodernist views but rather that you give pass to them. So you indirectly promote them when your responces to commenters who are moral or epistemological relativists dont register where you stand. One of the commonest views thrown around CT is that there is no difference between western democracies and totalitarian regimes ; that Iran or nazi Germany occupies same moral space as US and so on . What is your reaction to such views ? You approve of them because you never criticise them .

What has this to do with PM ? One of the core doctrines of PM is perspectivism and moral relativism ( see Chris Bertrams post on cartoon dispute which defends moral relativism )and this is what underwrites most debates on CT ( see for instance the recent discusion of conspiracy thinking on the left ). Again tacit approval because only lazy discussion of what is wrong with conspiracy theories .

So what ? Well at minimum you have a problem with consistency : if you are concerned with maintaining intellectual standards why give pass to bullshit in your daily dealings with it ? But more important is the worry others have voiced : if you adopt Rortyan attitute to truth and see it as a type of supperstition how can you carry out the traditional left program viz. redusing inequality and reducing exploitation ? After all effort like that presuposes that we can distinguish right and wrong , no ?

]]> By: Luis Villa http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149258 Luis Villa Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:50:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149258 No print publication is any good at predicting tech trends. (Again, would be happy to be corrected here.) The Economist is not substantially better or worse at it than others. No print publication is any good at predicting tech trends. (Again, would be happy to be corrected here.) The Economist is not substantially better or worse at it than others.

]]> By: Jon H http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149257 Jon H Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:44:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149257 luis writes: "If I want tech news, I know where to go. " It's not a matter of technical content, it's a matter of accurately estimating the significance and real-world impact of various technologies. That doesn't require technical content, it requires that the writers and editors be able to accurately and skeptically evaluate things, and express those evaluations, without jargon, to the reader, rather than taking tech firms' PR as gospel and passing that on uncritically. luis writes: “If I want tech news, I know where to go. ”

It’s not a matter of technical content, it’s a matter of accurately estimating the significance and real-world impact of various technologies. That doesn’t require technical content, it requires that the writers and editors be able to accurately and skeptically evaluate things, and express those evaluations, without jargon, to the reader, rather than taking tech firms’ PR as gospel and passing that on uncritically.

]]> By: Maynard Handley http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149256 Maynard Handley Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:43:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149256 Yes well, as the saying goes, no-one ever went broke over-estimating the stupidity of the public. Yes well, as the saying goes, no-one ever went broke over-estimating the stupidity of the public.

]]> By: Luis Villa http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149247 Luis Villa Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:22:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149247 <i>have you ever read one of their “Tech Quarterly” inserts? The thing reads like it was put together by some of the more enthusiastic 13-yr olds on Slashdot. No-one with any serious involvement in the tech sector, either scientific/engineering or financial should take it seriously.</i> That's is an incredibly stupid statement, on par with 'No race car drivers should take a Range Rover seriously as a race car.' Well, duh. Anyone in the tech sector who reads the Economist for technical news should be fired on the spot. That's not because it is bad; that's because if you think a quarterly tech review is how you should get tech news, and getting tech news is part of your job, you're incompetent to start with. For someone who isn't in tech, it's the most competent regular review I've seen. Spectacular? No. Comprehensive? No. Pretty well targeted and well-written for a non-technical, business audience? Yes. If I want tech news, I know where to go. If I want to give my father (a doctor) tech news, I give him a copy of the quarterly. The only serious critique of it I have is that the scope is too limited, so it can't cover nearly enough big-picture trends. But the coverage of the trends it does cover is of fairly high quality, and certainly I haven't seen anything better for my father or other smart-but-no-tech-background professionals anywhere- if you have, let me know. have you ever read one of their “Tech Quarterly” inserts? The thing reads like it was put together by some of the more enthusiastic 13-yr olds on Slashdot. No-one with any serious involvement in the tech sector, either scientific/engineering or financial should take it seriously.
That’s is an incredibly stupid statement, on par with ‘No race car drivers should take a Range Rover seriously as a race car.’ Well, duh. Anyone in the tech sector who reads the Economist for technical news should be fired on the spot. That’s not because it is bad; that’s because if you think a quarterly tech review is how you should get tech news, and getting tech news is part of your job, you’re incompetent to start with. For someone who isn’t in tech, it’s the most competent regular review I’ve seen. Spectacular? No. Comprehensive? No. Pretty well targeted and well-written for a non-technical, business audience? Yes. If I want tech news, I know where to go. If I want to give my father (a doctor) tech news, I give him a copy of the quarterly. The only serious critique of it I have is that the scope is too limited, so it can’t cover nearly enough big-picture trends. But the coverage of the trends it does cover is of fairly high quality, and certainly I haven’t seen anything better for my father or other smart-but-no-tech-background professionals anywhere- if you have, let me know.

]]> By: Contributor A http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149195 Contributor A Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:59:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149195 Ok, so I'd appreciate some support for "scrofulous" besides "I've met him." That won't cut it. I work with him and I'm not prepared to take your unsupported word for it, and your readers shouldn't be. And you'll be anguished to hear that Micklethwait has become editor. Cancel your subscriptions now and monitor our further decline. Ok, so I’d appreciate some support for “scrofulous” besides “I’ve met him.” That won’t cut it. I work with him and I’m not prepared to take your unsupported word for it, and your readers shouldn’t be.

And you’ll be anguished to hear that Micklethwait has become editor. Cancel your subscriptions now and monitor our further decline.

]]> By: ogmb http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149185 ogmb Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:11:09 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149185 <i>Yep, that’s it, cancel before you even read it under the new editor. Nothing like preconceived notions.</i> Ms. Dashwood, it might not have occurred to you, but 95% of all non-purchase decisions are based on the preconceived notion that the product will probably not be worth the expense. (The other 5% are forgone repeat purchases which are based on the first-hand knowledge that the product sucked.) If the Economist is worried about losing Henry it can always extend an offer for a number of free issues post editor change. This is the way things are handled in a free market economy. Yep, that’s it, cancel before you even read it under the new editor. Nothing like preconceived notions.

Ms. Dashwood, it might not have occurred to you, but 95% of all non-purchase decisions are based on the preconceived notion that the product will probably not be worth the expense. (The other 5% are forgone repeat purchases which are based on the first-hand knowledge that the product sucked.)

If the Economist is worried about losing Henry it can always extend an offer for a number of free issues post editor change. This is the way things are handled in a free market economy.

]]> By: Maynard Handley http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/22/white-smoke-at-the-_economist_/comment-page-1/#comment-149141 Maynard Handley Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:53:38 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4462#comment-149141 I call bullshit. If you renewed recently, after five+ years of their stupidity and mendacity, I don't take a claim to regret that seriously. Anyone with eyes open could see what _The Economist_ had become years ago. As for zdenek and his ridiculous "the objection that a magazine like Economist is lowering its intellectual standards", dude, have you ever read one of their "Tech Quarterly" inserts? The thing reads like it was put together by some of the more enthusiastic 13-yr olds on Slashdot. No-one with any serious involvement in the tech sector, either scientific/engineering or financial should take it seriously. I call bullshit.
If you renewed recently, after five+ years of their stupidity and mendacity, I don’t take a claim to regret that seriously.
Anyone with eyes open could see what The Economist had become years ago.

As for zdenek and his ridiculous “the objection that a magazine like Economist is lowering its intellectual standards”, dude, have you ever read one of their “Tech Quarterly” inserts? The thing reads like it was put together by some of the more enthusiastic 13-yr olds on Slashdot. No-one with any serious involvement in the tech sector, either scientific/engineering or financial should take it seriously.

]]>