The Economist, a well-known British magazine, recently published a cover story, "China's electric car raid," illustrating electric cars rushing to Earth like an invading alien fleet, and nakedly blaming China's new energy technology for impacting the international market. This kind of cheap hype is really unbearable to look at. Coincidentally, 10 years ago, this magazine also published a cover story "The World's Biggest Polluter", illustrating a Chinese dragon swallowing clouds and spitting out mist to "pollute the world". Both covers, ten years apart, depict our planet as facing an existential threat, and the funny thing is that the threat in 2013 is China's carbon emissions, and the threat in 2024 is China's new green energy technologies. So what are we doing wrong in China?
It's not hard to see the Western media's anti-China narrative in the two reports in this magazine: whatever you do is wrong, whatever you do is a threat. Whether you develop or have problems, in any case, the image is negative in our case, as for how to make up, it depends on our paper work. This Western mainstream media, which has been quoted many times in articles for domestic teaching and examinations, has frequently spoken out on China-related topics in recent years, and has become the mouthpiece of anti-China forces in the United States and the West. Since you are so engaged, I will take off your skin and take a good look at the face behind your back.
Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".
Although the name of The Economist magazine with economic, New Oriental Exam English example sentences from the Economist, is a big reputation of the Western mainstream media. But this thing really has nothing to do with economics, it is full of Western centrism and ideology, should change its name to "Political Scientist", so as to be more vivid image.
The Economist is a British English-language weekly newspaper with a global circulation of eight editions, whose editorial office is located in London and was founded in September 1843 by James Wilson. Although the title is "The Economist", it does not specialize in the study of economics, nor is it an academic journal. Instead, it is a comprehensive news and commentary on global politics, economics, culture, science and technology, with an emphasis on providing in-depth analyses and commentaries on these topics. But in my opinion, the so-called comprehensive news review is also a sham, and it is more aptly called the Political Scientist.
In 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice Mohammad Hoge and publishing his private emails, which ultimately led to Hoge's resignation as chief justice of the International War Criminals Tribunal in Bangladesh. The newspaper denied the allegations.
In August 2022, according to U.S. media reports, the magazine published an article at the end of July, which featured a diatribe against Saudi Crown Prince Salman, but the article's accompanying photo became the center of attention. The Economist chose to refer to Salman himself with an image of a man with a pink lattice hijab, which is common in Arab countries, according to statements from people familiar with the matter. But because the image is accompanied by a bomb next to the hijab, it has strong racist connotations in the eyes of outsiders. The story attracted widespread international attention on social media, with many Arabs expressing strong dissatisfaction with the media's attempts to smear the image of Arabs in such a way as to try to "demonize" them. In response to the magazine's misguided actions, protests were organized by a number of concerned individuals to pressure the magazine in this way.
It's hard to believe that this is an established magazine that has been in publication for almost 180 years, and it's only right that it should be hounded.
Writing anonymously? Exquisite disguise!
This magazine is written on an anonymous basis. Yes, you read that right, anonymous. Articles in The Economist are almost never signed, and there is no list of editors or staff in the entire publication, not even the name of the editor-in-chief (currently Jenny Minton Beddoes). In keeping with the paper's tradition, successive editors-in-chief only publish an op-ed when they leave. This system is partly in keeping with the tradition of British newspapers at the time of their founding, but it has evolved in later years for the greater reason of giving the publication a "collective tone," especially, as The Economist notes, "the main reason for anonymity is based on the belief that the content of the articles that are being written is more important than who the authors are. important." For example, the editorials in each issue of the magazine are written after all the editors have participated in discussions and debates. In most articles, the author refers to himself as "your reporter" or "this reviewer." Op-ed writers usually refer to themselves by the name of their column.
That's anonymous writing, which gives rumor mongers a free hand. Hey, say what you will, but you can't catch me. That's the style of the magazine, but readers don't buy it either.
The American writer Michael Lewis once claimed that The Economist kept its contributions anonymous because the editorial board didn't want readers to know that the contributors were actually young writers with little seniority. He joked in 1991, "The magazine's contributors are young people pretending to be sophisticated ...... If American readers could see that their economics mentors were actually full of pimples, they would be scrambling to cancel their subscriptions." Canadian author John Ralston Saul also once called the paper "an illusion created by hiding the names of the contributing journalists, as if its contents were impartial truths rather than personal opinions. Given that the very social science to which the paper's title corresponds loves to cloak wild speculation and imagined facts in a cloak of inevitability and precision, it is not surprising that its sales tactics are imbued with pre-Reformation Catholicism."
In May 2002, the Zimbabwean government detained the Economist's local correspondent, Andrew Meldrum, and charged him with "publishing false news." Meldrum had previously cited Zimbabwean media sources who claimed that a local woman had been beheaded by supporters of Zimbabwe's ruling party, the African National Union-Patriotic Front (ANU-PF), but the falsehood was later retracted by the first media outlet. Meldrum was eventually acquitted and deported.
Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns
On January 28, 2012, The Economist magazine opened a new China column to provide more space for articles about China. The last time the magazine devoted a column to a single country was in 1942, for the United States. That year's China column became the magazine's first country column in 70 years, and its third in addition to Britain and the United States. #peace#Burma。
