I interned at the Economist one summer in college and wrote two articles for it - the published articles bore a small relationship to what I had submitted. The sub-editors seemed to be mostly George Smiley-type Oxford and Cambridge PhD's of a certain age with an eclectic range of expertises, as far as I recall.
I sent a comment once, that was published. It had been entirely rewritten, with almost no loss of meaning but complete overhaul of style, and no indication that it had been the case.
I didn't mind that it was rewritten, but thought they should disclose that fact.
Edit: I mean I think they should make it clearer to readers that published letters have been rewritten, and in some cases, heavily.
However, my final one was edited so horrendously and offensively in print that the only charitable interpretation was that English was not the letters editor's first language. After a few emails back and forth, and the terse revelation from a very piqued editor that English was in fact her first language, she graciously corrected the online version. My advice to anyone who wants emulate the house style of The Economist is that they should read P.G. Wodehouse first.
I stopped writing letters after that because it signalled a shift in culture at the papers, where the people working for them didn't seem to have the same relationship to truth they once appeared to. The feeling of opening that salmon coloured paper to find your letter in it (with only modest surprise) and giving your morning coffee a smug celebratory sip is one of the things upvotes on the internet have not yet been able to replace.
That said, I personally have learned nothing from the Economist either. Wodehousian style or not.
I recommend Stephen Leacock. Yours etc...
They ran my ad but the only part that varied from the template was my list if "tech skills". Unfortunately, this meant the job ad was "pre-covid" so it stated we do not work remotely, you must be local, etc. Sigh.
Discussion about the voting on comments is generally discouraged:
"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
"The Economist thanks you for your letter, which has been passed to the author of the article. All letters are edited if selected for publication either in print or online.
We will need to know where you are writing from, so please ensure you have supplied the name of the city, town or village and the country if that is not obvious.
If you do not wish your letter to be published send an e-mail promptly to firstname.lastname@example.org."
One of my letters was published. I fully expected that it would be edited and was pleased with the result. You can see both versions here - https://gist.github.com/nindalf/12a533f6ff64d7f146845f289acd.... I thought the edited version conveys the intent well.
I think I agree, the edited version conveys the meaning and intent well. I assume the links were removed as a matter of form factor/medium.
I agree that this is smart editing that preserves the original meaning well. The one decision I question is simplifying your nicely-phrased “Most programmers spend most of their time attaching these disparate blocks together” to just “most programmers spend their time [...]”
Programmers => Programmers in general, with many obvious exceptions, too numerous to list in a brief reply.
All Programmers => All Programmers
PS- Hmmm. Now I wonder if any style guides cover this? Surely some do.
(Also, there's a difference between editing and rewriting.)
If you don't like the terms, don't engage.
Edited to add: newspapers in the UK take libel law seriously so you have some confidence they won't grossly misrepresent your views.
Also there's a difference between the expectation that the letter can be truncated or just the gist of it extracted for reasons of space, and entire sentences or paragraphs rewritten in full. I would have never expected the latter even with a "right to edit letters reserved" disclaimer.
A letter to the editor might read:
> I saw on your article about the size of foodstuffs that food items are not getting smaller - actually people are just getting bigger. Very interesting article, quite funny and relevant as I've been collecting food items since I was a child and can confirm that this isn't always true. I've got a few exapmles where it holds, but I also have a kit kat from when I was 18 (born 1979) that used to be 500g and now they are 250g as standard. I'm a big fan and this is the first time I have spotted a huge glaring error! Please explain that one!
Clearly that would need to be reframed. I'm not particularly good, but I can see why a newspaper might want to shorten it:
> In last week's article The Economist argued that foodstuffs were not getting smaller, however I own a standard kit-kat from the 1997 that is double the size of ones available in shops today. Thoughts?
The above is probably an improvement from a readers perspective, conveys the points of the original message, and they aren't usually attributed to a specific, identifiable person anyway (usually something like John from London) so I don't think there is any huge scandal here.
(As someone who writes for a living, I can tell you that it takes a little getting used to, especially when an editor butchers a sentence you're pleased with. But it's part of the process you learn to accept eventually — and they were probably right.)
(From 14m20s -- 16m30s)
I do occasionally revert changes when I'm reviewing--usually because I wrote something poorly and an editor misinterpreted--but I reject relatively few suggestions. I figure that if I wrote something that confused my editor or they just didn't like it, a lot of readers will feel similarly.
To the extent the comment is atrributed to the author whose words were altered it can be.
An published, attributed comment is a published fact claim about what the author has expressed, and if it is false and damaging can be libel.
The Economist wishes to publish from a wider set of contributors and its house style is harder for that group to imitate.
One problem is that normal humans don’t write concisely. The other is that the Economist is a global publication... you probably would not be happy with long-form musings of Johnny Random from Papua New Guinea. You’re opting in for highbrow British style.
I guess the main difference is that code editing is done in collaboration with the author (code review) as opposed to an editor.
If refactoring code did not have the potential side-effect of changing its run-time behaviour (or performance) I'd argue that software engineering would also benefit from a 'code editor' role :)
(metaphor/similar example follows)
In the same sense that someone who reviews a (IT) technical procedure is not necessarily a systems administrator, but someone who sees things from an angle to ensure RACI model is followed throughout without any generalizations such as "backup is taken" (by who? using which tools? which systems/data are backed up? how often? how long do we keep the tapes? how often do we trash the tapes? where do we store the tapes?). I haven't taken a backup for more than a decade, but I would shred a backup procedure to pieces. If you remove me from the review cycle, I won't go back to writing procedures.
Same way as humans? Via training on new inputs?
It doesn't have to understand any of those in any "human" sense, where it would be able to articulate what it understood on a meta level, etc.
It would just have to reinforce the right patterns and fuzzy connections that lead to success in writing credible looking articles....
We're probably at a point where we can manufacture shallow fakes of the current writing style, and I'm sure techniques like this will become prevalent (because convenience), but I feel you're missing the point of what I'm saying. It does need to understand these things. If it doesn't, then what it is is a mechanical reproduction of a current style of writing: that's a completely different category of thing, it's not even close to similar.
There are no new inputs in this case because we got replaced editors with NN.
Or their own work, as ranked by readers (e.g. their past posts that had the more views and better engagement).
As an Economist reader for 15 years now and as a big Le Carre fan that’s exactly how I imagined them to be. Even though after the latest editor change there seems to have been a notable change in tone/style, most visible (for me) in the US-related section (calling a sitting US president names isn’t what I expected from The Economist).
One place that does this, it's obvious and uncreatively done: Deutsche Welle for their English articles.
Don’t be ridiculous. This is a feature not a bug. It helps discourage sensationalism and encourage a sober viewpoint that’s not designed to generate Twitter or Instagram followers. I wish more news sources would do this.
With you on the witticisms though
> Smiley was born to middle-class parents
Doesn't sound like the Economist
You can think of it more as the US middle-upper-class.
This musical number from the UK comedy "Mongrels" more-or-less nails the mindset:
The Economist was the only magazine in my life I would regularly read cover to cover. Every article revealed something I didn’t know about the world, or about my own country, and the information was dense. Most articles were just a few paragraphs, so I didn’t have time to get bored before I’d move on to the next one.
If you were literate and interested, after being exposed to the Economist it was impossible to read Time, Newsweek or US News & World Report. It was eye-opening just how bad they were.
In addition they have alot of military/technology coverage and extensive China coverage. US news really did not cover the fact that Xi Jinping is now China's leader for life(2018, which is huge news) the economist wrote several articles about this. They also tend to do pretty well with macro trend analysis and predictions.
Lastly there are no long form/in the weeds articles which I just really don't have time for, think vanity Fair, Atlantic, and the New Yorker.
Today many people don't read past the headlines, and the pacing of USA Today seems positively languid and scholarly.
Not even local media would have been able to describe it like The Economist did.
Little did I know that I inadvertently set off a tracking campaign into whom they resold subscriber data to. I would get all sorts of promotional magazines and other unsolicited mail for "Sir. Zach Aysan" or similar. Still makes me chuckle to this day.
The transparent/semi-translucent paper they switched to made it absolutely unreadable for me. Such a shame, I really enjoyed reading it. I read some articles online, but it's not the same as having a magazine in my hands.
Some travelers I met were surprised when they talked with the younger me about their country's healthcare reform, the valuation of their currency or their mroe vocal political leaders.
I wonder how much it helps that their writers are anonymous and therefore less likely to go on personal flights of fancy or building an argumentative approach. It is perhaps puts the individual writer on the backfoot but makes the quality of the publication higher. Personally I think other sources would do well to consider this - frankly I would rather be a fan of an idea than a writer: the former seems reasonable the latter likely to vere into pointless worship. Plus it's much easier to switch to new ideas if they're superceded by better ones in due course.
It's fact and evidence based and strongly avoids emotionally charged language and bias. That's not to say it's perfect. It's just closer to perfect than any other media source out there.
A trick someone told me was to read the sections in reverse (Obit, Books / Arts, Science etc); the writing quality is best towards the end!
PS this post reads a lot like the Johnson column on language, writing etc.
this one is a particularly good example, that HN may enjoy https://www.economist.com/obituary/2019/02/21/obituary-the-m...
It gets at what you assume about your audience when you include vs. don't include these.
I'm sometimes amused by what gets the explanatory comma in The New Yorker. I recall one issue where they included one for what an MLA citation was. But in the same issue assumed familiarity with someone like Jacques Derrida and their ideas. (This probably wasn't the exact example, but it was close to this.)
"Yanis Varoufakis, a self-proclaimed erratic Marxist, [...]" vs "Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the President of the Eurogroup, [...]"
What about "Varoufakis, a PhD economist who taught economics in three continents, [...]" vs "Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the President of the Eurogroup who accidentally claimed he obtained an MA from University College Cork, [...]"
See what I did there? :-)
Truth of the matter is that Varoufakis dwarfs the Eurogroup in terms of knowledge much like Keynes dwarfed everyone else at the Bretton Woods. Both of them, came from a position of weakness and for <reasons> failed to deliver.
The Economist doesn't like Varoufakis, so Varoufakis must always be always shown in a derogatory light, while complete clowns like JD, and many others (see Krugman's assessment of Schäuble's speech and analysis, laughable at best - comparing a state's economy to a household) as "high ranking, noteworthy authorities".
Varoufakis is an example ofc. There are others (e.g. Beppe Grillo, Berlusconi, etc.).
The other thing the Economist has (not) going on is that you can tell beforehand what you're going to read... I mean from MILES away, you already know the magazine's stance of everything that matters. China, Russia, Iran (bad)... US (good), UK (okay-ish), EU (almost-good).
Consistently pro-war: Supported and pushed (Syria) for all kinds of invasions (Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.).
If you take away all that (and it's a lot), the rest is fine :-)
Whenever the Economist speaks about the Iraq War, they add in parentheses “(which this newspaper supported)”. They don’t need to do that after so many years, but they do it anyway. That level of candour impressed me.
This from 2018, 15 years after the war started - “Iraq, in other words, is doing well (see article). Some will argue that this justifies America’s invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein (which we supported). It does not. Too much blood was shed along the way in Iraq and elsewhere.”
This level of self-reflection is rare.
The Economist as a paper overall is very open-minded when it comes to different ideological points of view. I remember the analysis of Harry's and Meghan's move to the US through a Marxist lens, or their surprisingly positive take on China's developmentalist state. For a magazine with a self-declared pro free-trade and market-based bias they tend to reflect a lot. I'm way to the left politically of the target-audience of the paper but I really don't think they deserve the reputation they get as some sort of unabashedly capitalist magazine.
On a deeper level, there's no apolitical journal. Consciously or unconsciously authors, magazines, etc. are pushing specific agendas. If the magazine wants to play fair, needs to avoid cheap shots.
Beppe Grillo did not govern but for a long time was a kind of opposition leader in Italy. The econ referred to him as a "comedian-turned-politician" at all times. I find this deeply unethical. I never read the "mediocre-actor-turn-politician" about Ronal Reagan. The "actor" or "comedian" capacity doesn't matter when you talk public policy.
Since you seem to like dictionary definitions, here:
context | ˈkɒntɛkst |
the circumstances that form the setting for an event,
statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully
Well worth a listen, even it does end up with me muttering curses at the 'radio' sometimes.
I don't care how widely used the acronym for a noun is, first use should always be the full form.
Only time I don't think it should be applied is in the case of a standard/protocol, or policy (such as gif or VAT). Then the first use should be the concept explained, not what it stands for.
I do like their style-guide definition:
acronym: A pronounceable word, formed from the initials of other words, like radar, nimby or NATO. It is not a set of initials, like the BBC or the IMF.
One example is the amount on comments here on hn about some acronyms thrown without explanation.
There are, for instance, 1200 matches for 'What is IC' (Individual Contributor)
Can anyone who grew up here explain why Americans prefer partisan media? It boggles my mind and is something I have failed to understand. Elsewhere in the world, being biased is taken as an insult, whereas here, news organizations seem to take pride in it!
Some of the limits are due to the way that media is regulated in others countries (vs. not regulated at all in the US). In the UK for instance, the major broadcasters have a public service remit, and can be challenged easily via libel laws, regulation etc if they print something which is overtly incorrect. In the US, that is less the case which means that news has evolved into a kind of entertainment rather than a source of information.
It is fair to say that once you descend below the editorials, you will find more interesting viewpoints. But all of the leaders and editorial pieces are totally anodyne. Imo, this is an editorial decision that changed in 2015, and it has got significantly worse.
They have backed all three major parties in general elections in the last twenty years .
For the UK i see them clearly as hardcore liberal democrats.
I think that in the south Europe political landscape they would be orphaned as there even the center parties are not very economically liberal.
the economist takes a conventional stance of promoting policies that favor the already wealthy. that facet of it is rather banal and certainly not where the exciting ideas for the next millennia are going to emerge from.
I think it’s unfair to say they support policies that favor the already wealthy. Certainly they do sometimes, but they’ve opposed tax cuts, supported minimum wage increases, etc. I’m ready to be proven wrong but I haven’t got that impression when I read it.
it's not unfair to call a spade a spade. opposing tax cuts can be done for a myriad of supportive or unsupportive reasons, so that doesn't provide a useful counter-argument.
and "minimum wage increases" sounds great on the surface. but the underlying purpose of a minimum wage is to paper over gross systemic equities that have only grown over time and keep us from even discussing policies for creating more fair and dynamic markets that would naturally distribute wealth more widely and efficiently, and neatly obviate such a distortion-producing bandaid of a policy.
but the central point is that no significant party and nearly no politician is addressing systemic issues that has promoted winner-take-all dynamics in our politicoeconomy for at least the last 50 years. even obamacare was so browbeaten and laden with special interest provisions, our healthcare costs have only soared, all to append zeroes onto bank accounts that abosolutely don't need, and more pointedly don't deserve, them.
This is a made up problem that came from economists high on their own models. Empirical evidence shows that minimum wage increases in the US have almost none of the distorting effects they would supposedly have. The response from economists has been to make up new models that show it's okay actually, up to ~60% of median wage.
Some countries like the Nordics have high incomes despite no minimum wage (they have sectoral bargaining unions instead) but they should probably get one since it increases productivity a little. And Australia's federal minimum wage is still higher than any locality in the US and yet causes no problems.
the problem is one of wealth and income distribution, particularly what happens as the shape of the distibution skews unnaturally toward the top and the powerful incentives to skew it that way. trying to shore up the tiny low end of that distribution (i.e., via minimum wage) is like throwing pebbles on the beach and hoping to fortify against the ocean. it's useless if the stated purpose of stemming the tide actually coincides with the underlying intent.
(also note that modeling is an assertion of perspective and values, not an empirically objective experimental apparatus in itself. you cannot find truth simply by modeling, as plato's allegory of the cave alludes.)
I imagine there is 'evidence' out there but the empirical claim is quite intriguing. Do you have any sources for this?
One thing that might disappoint people is that increasing minimum wage isn't the best way to reduce poverty in the US, for the simple reason that most poor people aren't wage laborers. And not unemployed either - they're children and the elderly. Child allowances seem like they'll be very effective here, unless you don't trust their parents to use it well.
(Not /s, but also not not /s?)
However, unlike many publications, they are fairly forthcoming about it, and are clear about their position.
I don't agree with all of their positions (though I agree with most), but I most of all appreciate that they don't really try to bury opinion into "objective" reporting.
But they're also willing to explore other sides, and even lean or agree with them. They occasionally create a false dichotomy, but they're usually (ironically) fair and balanced, or at least attempt to be.
Meanwhile, UK and Australian media are awful, full of Murdoch sockpuppet papers that constantly lie about everything in order to get you to hate immigrants and vote Tory/Liberal. WSJ is a Murdoch paper but they have to sell to bankers, who at least professionally need to know the truth, which is why only the opinion section is nuts. UK papers are like the New York Post if it had less than no ethics.
However although it has kept the same free trade agenda it is refreshingly open minded and is not tied to dogma, or political parties.
On a more philosophical level one might say that all media is biased - and that those who nakedly display their subjectivity are easier to parse using critical analysis than those who mask it through centrist positioning in an ideological spectrum.
At the end of the day there is no way to produce a non-biased publication, you’re buying into the stories the publishers choose to publish (fact based or not), your opinion is likely formed before you read the magazine.
The political viewpoint of The Economist has shifted. Twelve years ago it was right-liberal, today it is left-liberal, but that is only because the above character has shifted in his views.
I got my own subscription a few years ago and now regularly read it. Most of its politics now line up with my own. I'm sure I've changed some, but the paper definitely has changed as well.
True. I dare say that during the pandemic, policy articles have shifted towards Keynesian economics which is a huge U-turn from 00's and early 00's. On the other hand, the CEO changed in 2019, maybe that has something to do with it.
It's pretty factual if you ignore that slant though.
Also, lack of regulation. In the US you are a news organization if you say that you are news organization. Just like, at least colloquially, you are a professor if you teach a class at collage level. There is no body, or authority to set standards, expectations, and to confer those titles after a vigorous process.
I can see why I need to reach for the Wayback Machine to read this great style guide. In the modern world, giving this example is far more trouble than it's worth. People do get touchy about challenges to their carefully promoted jargon, and now they are on the twitter.
The book has almost identical content from what I recall. I think they may have admitted defeat on the use of "he" for a hypothetical person of arbitrary gender.
I think lots of good style guides quote them. My favourite is probably Kingsley Amis's "The King's English".
It has the distinct "old man shouts at clouds" energy that one gets best from posthumous volumes.
Sometimes it's the story of an unsung hero, whose life story shines a new perspective on an event we're aware of. For example, the recent obituary of Nikolai Antoshkin, the general who led the response to the Chernobyl reactor.
Other times, it's an ordinary person who lived their life in an ordinary way. But in the wider context, their lives have extraordinary meaning. I'm reminded of the obituary of the last speaker of the Eyak language, which was as much an obituary for the language as it was for them.
OP talks a lot about the style and how they keep it simple, but there is so much beauty in that simplicity.
Just so unexpected as subjects for the Economist and beautifully done in capturing the spirit of a certain period in British life.
The issue I have is that they display ads on a page. I don't mind ads in general but they actually embed animated banners which are very distracting and it worsens reading experience a lot, and you have to pay for such a privilege to stare at flashy animated ads of some clothing.
I used AdblockPlus which works well. I resent having to use an ad blocker to read the journalism I'm a paid subscriber for, but at least it works.
A customer rep for The Economist confirmed they also do not remove ads and actually suggested I just install an ad blocker!
As far as I can tell, even the WSJ (which costs over $450 a year!!!) does not remove ads for subscribers.
The only publications I'm aware of that remove ads are The New York Times and The Guardian.
But I wish I could have their print ads in the Android version.
Like, where else can I get ads for watches that cost the same as my flat, airline seats that I would never afford, expensive MBA, or job vacancies for multilateral organizations.
My targeted online ads are more boring.
“Learned writing from The Economist. Wasn’t easy to learn English at home. No one I knew was fluent and I couldn’t afford a private tutor. Best I could do was to create my own syllabus. The kiosk near my house had the Economist. I’d save my allowance to buy whatever issue was on the stand. Divided each issue into 2 units: Vocabulary and Writing Tools. I’d memorize the novel words and apply the newly-discovered sentence structures. Kept doing this for three years.”
[“Good university-level” writing is verbose, filled with flourishes and redundant verbosities, and things that can be accurately context-guessed.]
Also how you get ahead in Nigeria.
I was quite interested to learn this, because I would always have used the word "scuttled" for the deliberate sinking of a ship.
Being able to write in this style is useful for all kinds writing besides reporting the news.
The book gives insights into everything a foreigner might face while writing for journalism in English.
I’ll probably still use privacy.com to be safe. But good to hear they addressed that. I’ve been thinking of subscribing again for a few months.
I've since resubscribed.
—- next paragraph
It works, but writing that way was such a toil. Sometimes there is no value in 2 sentences of commentary and sometimes more explanation is needed. Sometimes it’s best to present three details all at once, instead of one by one. My teacher lifted the requirement on me after I ignored the rule but still wrote a quality essay.
Magazines are on longer deadlines and can adopt varying styles. That's not to say you hide the lede in the last paragraph, but you do have more flexibility in getting to the point.
The Economist, which actually calls itself a newspaper, probably is roughly inverted pyramid but not as much as AP copy would be.
How is this better than simply using the word "thwarted"?
I'll give back by sharing an advice I learned from ptatcek: the inverted pyramid.[^2]
Here's some example of what I just re-wrote.
- I have talked about cryptographic primitives in the previous chapter, they are constructions that achieve specific security properties and form the building blocks of cryptography.
- In the first part of this book you will learn about several important ones.
+ Attributing global unique identifiers to anything, that's the promise of the first cryptographic construction
- In chapter 2, you've learned about an interesting construction --hash functions--that on its own doesn't provide much, but if used in combination with a secure channel allows you to verify the authenticity and integrity of some data.
+ Mix a hash function with a secret key, and you obtain something called a *message authentication code (MAC)*.
- You've learned about authenticated encryption in chapter 4, which is a form of symmetric encryption.
- This is an extremely useful cryptographic primitive, yet in the real-world, there exist many situations where different peers do not have a shared secret.
+ In chapter 4 you learned about authenticated encryption, a cryptographic primitive used to encrypt data but limited by its symmetry: both sides of a connection had to share the same key.
+ In this chapter, I'll lift this restriction by introducing *asymmetric encryption*: a primitive to encrypt to someone else's key without knowing the key.
- For as far as I can remember, the term "crypto" has been used in reference to the field of cryptography.
- Recently, I have seen its meaning quickly changing and being used by more and more people to refer to *cryptocurrencies*.
+ Can cryptography be the basis for a new financial system?
+ This is what cryptocurrencies have been trying to answer since at least 2008, when Bitcoin was proposed by Satoshi Nakamoto (who to this day has yet to reveal their identity).
The New Yorker is one alternative but i find their pieces very long-winded and high-brow.
It is one of the main journals of the liberal business elite and has a fairly awful (and fascinating) anti labour history. It cloaks itself in a casual Oxbridge patina of disinterested expertise, but at its core, it radically advocates for liberal international capital, deregulation and privatisation. Neoliberalism to use a modern polysyllabic word.
Its stance towards the Irish famine should give one a taste of its beliefs, and they haven't changed much in 170 years or so... There have been some wonderful articles written on this publication, and I'd urge anyone to take a look at the publication from another angle.
 What the Economist doesn’t tell you - https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/what-the-economi...
 "The Economics of the Colonial Cringe," about The Economist magazine; Washington Post, 1991 - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot...
 How The Economist Thinks - https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/05/how-the-economist-thi...
‘Today big tech is in disrepute, not unlike banks after the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the situation in 2008. In both cases, regulators marched in. [...] Lawmakers and regulators should apply that ethos by imposing similar obligations on the tech titans‘
The tools that you describe are how all news should be written! The inverted pyramid of information -- broad but important bits at the top, details at the bottom -- is a structure I remember from my high school newspaper class.
I do want to point out that there's a fine line between using precise words and being intelligible to the public. "Traduced," as you introduce in example, isn't a common word where I'm from, and could be expressed in other ways (slandered, defamed, maligned) that are in more common circulation. A case of 'know thine audience' I suppose.
Anyway, I quite like to read a word that I have never used, it enriches my vocabulary.
I also enjoy learning new words, but the point of the article was how to communicate clearly, not how to enrich your readers' vocabularies.
[edit: and here's a comparison map showing that maligned is searched for over traduced at a ratio of 7:3 in the UK, 9:1 in the US. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=traduced,maligned... ]
It's obviously not an incorrect usage, just an unnecessarily alienating one.
Their coverage of countries at odds to the US elite/national security state ranges from being slanted to suspect word choice to falsehood by omissions to complete lies.
They are open about being a mouthpiece and an advocate and not impartial. Among the 100s (since 1843) of false coverage of countries on the receiving end of Anglo Saxon imperial aggression and genocide (English-speaking countries etc) look at their fake coverage of the coup in Chile and more recently the one in Bolivia. With non-white and non-European countries like Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Vietnam etc they openly advocate their destruction. (worth looking into their archives for those who want to study manufactured consent)
This helps serve the policy objectives of lowering non-white populations:
I find that style of writing a little bit obnoxious, so I have not taken my lessons from the Economist.