The Economist & Barack Obama

The Economist this week issues an article that pretty much sums up key things you need to know about Barack Obama and John McCain as both men are making last-ditch efforts heading up to the US Presidential Election. Only, the article appears to be directly endorsing Barack Obama as the man who “deserves the presidency”. Wait a second, that does not sound quite right for a newsmagazine that aims “to take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress”, does it? Now, I may not be an expert in passing any judgment but if there is one thing I can be sure about, it is that The Economist as a reputable agent of democracy does not have any capacity to state clearly its preference of a person over the other, much less when the matter being discussed concerns the fate of a country. I can still understand if this is an op-ed article - you have every right to voice out your personal opinion even though a newsmagazine of this scale is not quite the ideal place for that - but the thing is this is not. I am talking about a main article, with the endorsement made clear in the opening sentence and the name of the newsmagazine referred to as the author.

Before I go any further, let me make myself clear that I have nothing against Obama. In fact, I personally feel that he will make a more reliable president as opposed to McCain, whose choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate still fills me with bafflement (this is a personal blog, you cannot say that I am not allowed to do this).

Let me go back to The Economist. Now, I did not quite have the time to read through all the comments of the article that total up to more than a thousand, but from the quick look I did manage to find one that pretty much says it all. This comment, by someone named Mercy Vetsel, starts with his disappointment over the sloppy, bias article being laid clear, before it explores the dark sides of both candidates that The Economist failed to capture. The last point of his comment caught my attention:

“So at this critical juncture, with one party controlling the Congress and a perfect storm of ugly populist policies darkening the horizon, what does The Economist, the 165 year bastion of freedom do?

You follow the crowd and throw the in with the man who represents everything that you oppose. All of the lessons of economics which you express with increasingly tepid enthusiasm in the pages of your magazine are quickly discarded for the crowd favourite and a giant smile that promises “I am whatever it is you are looking for”. I suppose freedom is a great thing unless it makes you unpopular.”

Pretty much he concludes that The Economist succumbs to public preference to Obama, which it should not be doing.

Some other comments also point out several glaring factual errors in the article, something that I do not have the knowledge to comment about. However, I did notice that quite a number of respondents were pretty much caught up with emotions and you can see that key issues have a lot to do with your own principle and perspective which make you neither wrong nor right. For these reasons, I would not say that their stand would necessarily disprove the notion brought by the article. Still, it is best if The Economist can stick to facts and avoid riling up the crowds, or offer valid arguments while fending off the temptation to jump into anyone’s side.