Is The Economist Always Wrong?
Hacker News users weigh whether The Economist’s confident, data-driven tone matches its actual track record on forecasts, especially in economics, geopolitics and war. Commenters cite its support for the Iraq invasion, mixed calls on China and markets, and culture‑war coverage (e.g., on trans issues) as evidence of bias or overconfidence, while others defend it as one of the better-researched mainstream outlets whose readers mainly buy the feeling of being “in the know.” The thread also touches on media incentives, the role of prediction vs. explanation in journalism, and how ownership, paywalls and perceived class interests shape trust in such publications.
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.