Economist tweets today that “People worry about immigration but vote for the NHS”
The Economist tweets today that “people worry about immigration but vote for the NHS” It’s the ‘but’ that seals it. Wow, these people must be stupid! I mean how could they do that? It makes me wonder who owns the Economist for it to be proffering such condescending ‘analysis’ and such patronising tone. There is such agenda here, which is something I never used to associate with the Economist.
In terms of ownership 50% is owned by Pearson and according to Wiki the “bulk of the remaining shares are held by individual shareholders including the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Agnelli and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders.” Ah well I guess that explains it then, bankers are not know for supporting a well fare state, more couldn’t care. So objective analysis not necessarily on the cards.
However the Economist does, or at least did, have a credible reputation perhaps and it is therefore a particularly useful weapon when convincing the voters of the ‘informed’ answer, the intelligent logical answer, even if that answer is as directed by doctrine in the same way an animal’s behaviour might be directed by hunger.
In journalism I have noticed in the past that where there is an agenda, a bias, it is declared, for example a sportsman writing as an ambassador for a brand. However, where it is not declared, there is obvious room for deception. And it could be perhaps that the owners of the Economist would like to deceive you into thinking it’s reporting is objective when really it is laced with agenda.
I guess the Economist stands for business and not everyone, so there’s that and of course many businesses are set to benefit from the privatisation of the NHS, big money, long contracts. And this is one way of conditioning voters. It may masquerade as a publication designed to enable people to make the correct decision but really it’s all about getting people to make the Right decision….