306
submitted 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) by vovo@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/politics@lemmy.world
all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 71 points 17 hours ago

Pff somebody's billionaire forgot to shut down the opinion column.

[-] vovo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 17 hours ago
[-] cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world 26 points 17 hours ago

https://www.economistgroup.com/esg/board

Chaired by a Baron, the Lord Paul Deighton, who also chairs the Heathrow airport and was involved in banking and the conservative governments of UK, handling part of the covid crisis for Boris, and being involved with the Pandora papers scandal.

The rest of the board has their own stories.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Deighton,_Baron_Deighton

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 19 points 14 hours ago

I’m guessing people in US allies countries like the UK, even billionaires, realize how bad Trump will be for foreign relations. So while Musk and Besos will suck his dick because all of their shit is in the US, these guys aren’t so eager to play ball.

[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago

Not the greatest background but certainly unsurprising for The Economist. Oh well, an endorsement is an endorsement.

[-] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 12 points 16 hours ago

Probably because they've always supported right wing ideology.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Wow such edge

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

The Economist - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Economist:

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United Kingdom


Wikipedia search about this source

The Economist - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Economist:

Wiki: reliable - Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. Distinctively, its news articles appear without bylines and are written in editorial voice. Within these articles, Wikipedia editors should use their judgement to discern factual content – which can be generally relied upon – from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources. Its pseudonymous commentary columns and other opinion pieces should also be handled according to this guideline.


MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United Kingdom


Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://archive.is/20241031133151/https://www.economist.com/in-brief/2024/10/31/why-the-economist-endorses-kamala-harris
https://www.economist.com/in-brief/2024/10/31/why-the-economist-endorses-kamala-harris
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[-] thefluffiest@feddit.nl 6 points 12 hours ago

Least biased, right 😂

this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
306 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19136 readers
3253 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS