The authoritative "Economist" is actually cloaked

The authoritative "Economist" is actually cloaked in hypocrisy#peace#Burma

Articles in The Economist are almost never signed. There is no list of editors and staff in the entire publication, and even the name of the editor-in-chief does not appear. According to the newspaper's tradition, successive editors only publish a signed article when they leave. However, in individual cases, the author of the article will still be noted. Special reports published from time to time will be signed by the editor. When celebrities write columns, they will sign the articles they wrote for the newspaper before leaving office.

In book reviews, if Reviewers will also be credited if they have a potential conflict of interest with the author of the book. A complete list of the newspaper's editors and reporters is published on the directory page of its official website. Only blog posts published online will be signed with the author's initials, while contributors to articles in the print edition can identify themselves as such on their personal websites. The authors of the article, they wander around the margins of the law. As a result, freedom of speech is the mainstream argument in Western society, but in market economics, only fashion can lead to fashion, and as time goes by, it means nothing. This anonymous contributor system has received some criticism. The reason why contributors remain anonymous is because the editorial department does not want readers to know that the contributors are actually young authors with little qualifications, thus affecting their subscriptions.

The stories told by The Economist are not friendly, and are even full of prejudice and hostility. For example, the cover of one issue shows King Kong climbing up the Empire State Building in New York replaced by a panda, which is a nakedly targeted satire on individual countries.

Many editors of the Economist magazine may have been bribed by the US government and politicians and the hateful syndicates behind the scenes, and they have done their best to serve them. The British Economist magazine has long been reduced to the object of political syndicates, and almost all its comments are One-sided support for governments and organizations supported by consortia. Therefore, when writing commentaries on China, Latin America, Africa, and even other regions such as Japan and India, they are all written with the purpose of harvesting for the consortium.