I was there!

“The Economist is the worst sort of journalism I’ve ever seen; it’s just a magazine full of opinions and absolutely no facts at all.” The dude sat down and ignored what I have to say to him about the magazine I’ve just received from a friend.

For those who knew me back in JC and then in the army, The Economist was probably my favourite magazine/newspaper. And it still is, though my reading of it has been seriously reduced by the workload I’m facing at the moment and the pile of readings I’ve to complete each week. But it’s the magazine that taught me proper English exposition, and witty ways of presenting concise bits of bite-size facts that helps reader navigate difficult concepts you require them to comprehend before you get to the point. More importantly, The Economist taught me how to see the world through the lenses of the discipline; though it doesn’t necessarily do it in an academic way. I’ve always seen it as a mentor, a buddy and partner in learning about this world as well as the English Language.

I was hugely disappointed to hear that from an LSE student, especially one who actually does Development Economics and is presumably concerned about the world. What is wrong with opinions, I wonder. Isn’t that something he just voiced out? What is his expectations of journalism anyways? Objectivity? Are you sure some covert masking of ‘opinions’ as selective presentation of facts under the guise of objectivity doesn’t count as hypocrisy? I guess I like The Economist precisely because they make a stand and they tell you so; they explain why to you, and as intelligent readers of The Economist, they assume you have a stand yourself and tries to engage you with theirs. They do not presume you’re some mindless idiot who rant at them when their ‘predictions’ about the world turn out wrong or the politicians they support turn out to be corrupt. That sort of honesty about holding an opinion (but sometimes taking center ground), is not only human but intellectually realistic relative to attempting to be ‘objective’.

And The Economist is brimming with ‘facts’ about everyday little things, oblique references to works of art and literary fiction that might be analogous real world events. These, I cheerfully embrace though I initially started out being someone confused by them. I secretly giggle with conceit to myself when I understood some oblique joke they were trying to make by cross referencing technocrats to some characters in Samuel Beckett’s play and glow with excitement when Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty was evoked to suggest a hard-science parallel to Goodhart’s Law (though I certainly am not sure whether The Economist ever did that but hey, they definitely did something similar!). I’m not fearful to admit that I loved all that.

In fact, I was so enthusiastic about The Economist’s potential to be a learning tool for A Levels students that I wrote a piece on ERPZ about using articles from the magazine/newspaper to try thinking about concepts of Economics covered in A Levels and perhaps basic first year undergraduate Economics.

I’m sorry, and perhaps thankful that I never quite learnt your name, dude. I’ve still got a couple of classes and opportunities though. I hope some day down the road, you might really pick up a copy of The Economist and open your eyes to its brilliance. Or maybe you won’t want to get to know me lest I successfully evangelize it to you and your mind becomes corrupted by the opinions of the wonderful writers at The Economist…