Is The Economist Always Wrong?

Overall view of The Economist’s accuracy

• Many commenters say the outlet is often wrong on “big, important” calls (wars, geopolitics, China/BRICS, etc.) while being correct on trivia, which they find more misleading than random error.
• Others note the article’s own analysis finds it right more often than not, especially on consensus/status-quo forecasts.
• Several people treat it as a reliable barometer of elite conventional wisdom, even if not a truth source.

Methodology & prediction difficulty

• Some dislike that the self‑audit only covers “this millennium” and relies on an AI model to evaluate predictions, seeing this as shallow or gimmicky.
• A few ask for more rigorous tracking (e.g., Brier scores) and “skin in the game,” arguing the publication’s incentive is to appear right, not be right.
• There’s discussion of how public forecasts can change outcomes (Fed “forward guidance,” game theory), making some predictions inherently unstable.

Bias, ideology, and “both-sides” journalism

• Persistent critique: a reflexive free‑market, pro‑privatisation, pro‑war/liberal‑interventionist bias (e.g., support for the Iraq invasion; “never saw a war it didn’t like”).
• Some readers quit over perceived false balance or one‑sidedness: the Biden “walker” cover, handling of Trump vs. Biden’s mental fitness, and culture‑war topics.
• Others argue “both sides” is often misused as a pejorative; the real issue is false balance and misrepresentation.

Specific topic coverage (China, trans issues, etc.)

• Multiple commenters claim its China/India/BRICS cover stories and China‑collapse narratives have been consistently wrong.
• On transgender topics, several describe a pattern of frequent, negative framing without engaging trans voices, tied to a particular editor; this caused some to cancel subscriptions.

Ownership, elites, and trust

• One strand sees ownership links to wealthy families as implying service to “global elite banking interests.”
• Another cites the formal ownership structure and editorial safeguards to argue for independence.
• Some readers say they still find it among the “best” global publications, especially for concise briefings, data tables, business/finance, science, and obituaries; others now prefer outlets like the Financial Times or local business journals.

Media consumption & meta points

• Several note that serious outlets mainly provide a feeling of being informed and shared conversational ground.
• There’s broader skepticism of mainstream media (left and right) and proposals to accept ignorance in most domains, rely on domain expertise, and be wary of becoming misinformed rather than merely uninformed.