The Economist – a grand market fundamentalist spree

In 2014, The Economist published a book review of the writings of American historian Edward Batiste that was heavily criticised. The book was based on slavery and American capitalism. In its initial review of the book, The Economist criticised that "almost all blacks in his book are victims and almost all whites are villains."
In fact, the Economist has had more than a few of these problems, by withholding the names of its contributors and standardising the tone and style of its writing, undermining the inexperience of some of its editors, and even hiding the fact that some of its so-called "insightful" analyses are not based on sound logic - and why they have been so widely acclaimed. -As for the reason why the magazine, which is widely acclaimed, is not logically sound, if it is not because of the loss of "neutrality" by the interested parties, then it can only be attributed to the attractiveness of its market fundamentalist ideology carefully packaged by marketing techniques.
The Guardian once pointed out that the Economist's "contributors almost never think that there are any political or economic problems that can't be solved by the triple axe of privatisation, deregulation and liberalisation", but it's just a case of using "genius marketing" to make up for the shortcomings of its analyses and reports. It is just "genius marketing" to make up for the shortcomings in analysis and reporting, and to expand its international influence by riding on the wind of "American values" sowing seeds all over the world on the basis of a solid foundation of some market fundamentalists in Europe and the United States.
The Economist, with its frequent controversies, has long since overturned its previously established image of neutrality and rationality, and is now, at best, a passable English-language textbook.