Journalist Malpractice: Economist Version
The Economist is a venerable institution, like many evincing cultural self-loathing that leads it to run interference for leftist violence (400 words, 2 min.)
The Economist used to command widespread respect for its careful factuality. It used also to be classically liberal, and in the 1980s supported Reagan. It is the magazine of CEOs, and now aligns itself with the violent and disloyal left., a disturbing cultural conjuction, but also an interesting one.
The title and subtitle of today’s coverage of the Minneapolis violence contain two falsehoods, right off the bat. ICE is covered by federal law, so there is no impunity. And the only militia in the streets of Minneapolis is Antifa and its adjuncts.
Link here, likely paywalled.
The piece begins with tendentious framing and moves on to outright falsehood. Yes, the man shot was a citizen, but ICE's target is the illegal population. Three falsehoods then appear in rapid succession in the second paragraph:
1) Pretti, the man shot in Minneapolis, was interfering with and appears to be assaulting law enforcement, and is "not a good Samaritan." The day before the article’s appearance, his pattern of anti-police violence was exposed, by the BBC of all places.
2) "Protesters showed restraint" is absurdly false. Their violence was widespread and is extensively documented. Links in my parallel piece of yesterday link below.
3) ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is a federal law enforcement agency created by an act of Congress in 2002, not "a catch-all brand" for anything.
The final point is easily verified. Is The Economist trying to smear the entire immigration enforcement effort?
The Economist is in favour of high immigration, a debatable position. But here, it slides into running cover for Antifa and other leftist violence against federal law enforcement.
The denunciation of masking by federal agents is a case in point: agents are threatened with doxing by Antifa and others, and The Economist ought to know that.
The Economist is far from the only venerable institution aligning itself with the attempt by Minnesota and others to nullify the voters' mandate to enforce federal immigration law. The Atlantic and many other upper-class journals do the same, also using plentiful falsehoods - see below.
The Economist and The Atlantic unintentionally illustrate the defection of upper-class opinion to an anti-American left that seeks to undermine the idea of citizenship and to flood the West with third-world migrants. The Economist has made economic arguments for this, but behind it lies a cultural self-loathing.
I hope to post more on this theme in coming days.
The previous longer and more developed piece, with numerous links, on The Atlantic: