Sunday, September 18, 2011

The E-CONomist....apa sudah jadi sama lu?

I wonder what happened to them actually......

Some on the extreme Malay wing of the party grumble that all this reform stuff is going too far, but they will go along with it as long as it does not touch on the most profound sources of oppression and grievance in the country, the institutionalised ethnic discrimination that privileges Malays over the country’s other races, mainly Chinese and Indians. It is the system of ethnic quotas and divisions that is really holding the country back—if Mr Najib started to take an axe to all that, then absolutely nobody would question his credentials as a radical reformer Source here
That piece was spinned further by Malaysian Insider
KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 17 — The influential international newspaper The Economist has praised Datuk Seri Najib Razak for his move to repeal the Internal Security Act (ISA) and other controversial security laws but points out that he will have to abolish “institutionalised ethnic discrimination” before he can assume the mantle of a radical reformer. The extreme right-wing of Umno is expected to go along with the sweeping legislative changes as long as it does not touch on ethnic quotas and divisions, the newspaper said in an opinion published in its popular Banyan column yesterday. The international media has responded with measured praise to Najib’s efforts to assume the reformist mantle. “It is the system of ethnic quotas and divisions that is really holding the country back — if Mr Najib started to take an axe to all that, then absolutely nobody would question his credentials as a radical reformer,” the newspaper wrote. Source here

The very the strange one......

I asked myself........ am I the only one seeing the Economist in this manner ?

Apparently not......

Dani Rodrik the Rafiq Hariri Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University feels the same about them

Am I the only economist who does not read The Economist? Well maybe the first one to confess to it. No, it is not because I am too busy and don't have the time. It is a deliberate decision. Call it a one-man boycott of ideology that masquerades too often as journalism.
It wasn't always like that. In fact, I used to love the magazine and its opinionated style. It was such a refreshing read after American media! I loved it so much that I preferred buying it at the news stand at a higher price to subscribing, because I could get my hands on it faster that way. When I spent a year out on the West Coast, my most important complaint was that The Economist arrived later there (on Mondays instead of Saturdays). But then I realized that the more I knew about a subject, the less The Economist was making sense. Its one thing to be opinionated, another to be misinformed and arrogant at the same time. After one too many articles in this mold, I simply stopped picking up the magazine Source here

Not just him a lot of other people globally are complaining about their standards of reporting

Bangladesh Case Reference (Plus other countries examples)

London based weakly magazine The Economist, with a global readership continues to deliver inaccurate and unbalanced reporting on Bangladesh and India and to its time-tested relations. While some reports have exposed a pattern of bias in Economist coverage, the author repeatedly failed to address these documented concerns. Probably it may give an impression to some of us but the fact is The Economist frequently misrepresents the truth and omits relevant details. Recent reports on Bangladesh captured the animosity and carelessness with fact commonplace in the publication. We believe the reports clearly exposed its hatred and bigotry against Bangladeshi and Indian people as a whole. Without doubt, many people, especially the Bangladeshi people, feel hurt by this barefaced assault.
Source The Economist’s as usual biased coverage on Bangladesh-India comes under fire

Russian Case Reference 

The Economist does have a quite nasty habit of excluding evidence and limiting perspective when it serves its own interests, and the publication has long made clear that it considers Mr. Putin to be a figure of extreme, if not unique, malevolence. There’s nothing wrong with attacking Putin’s record as leader, in fact it’s a very easy thing to do. But doing so in such a hackneyed and myopic manner (in a manner that is so easily rebutted with a few basic Google searches and some elementary research into opinion polls) helps no one, least of all The Economist’s readers who were very badly misled into believing that Russians’ desire to emigrate is unique or noteworthy when precisely the opposite is the case.
Source FORBES Magazine: Yet Another Example of The Economist's Awful Russia Coverage 
There are many more....gua dah mengantuk nak kasi other case references...

But one must also distinguish The Economist and The Economist Blog Banyan

In this blog, our Asia correspondents and our Banyan columnist provide comment and analysis on Asia's political and cultural landscape
That piece about Malaysia is from its blog section...

Who the FUCK is R.C from Singapore who wrote that piece anyway?

Anyway incase you all missed their spinning on Penang go here to read my piece... more thing

Jib ....If you are considering R.C's suggestion of

"if Mr Najib started to take an axe to all that, then absolutely nobody would question his credentials as a radical reformer" 
Someone might just get an Axe and Re-Form you into 14 Pieces...pastu kasi tanam in 14 states....

Did I just threated the Prime Minister with Bodily harm?

No la ....what I meant is "Politically Re-Form" you.....

Minds are like parachutes; they work best when open. -Lord Thomas Dewer