… it has become ‘a politician’, but ‘a politician’ unstintingly more powerful than his non-journalistic peers. Beware of such corrupt affairs!
Why do we allow airport publications such as the Economist to force Netanyahu to step down as Israel’s prime minister? Isn’t the media supposed to be impartial, report the facts, and discuss the topic in a balanced manner so that the educated reader can make up his own mind?
The dangers of the lawless media completely running our electoral affairs are self-evident. Worse so in foreign countries. Unlike the political opposition parties, the media has zero accountability and doesn’t answer to the judiciary. Unlike politicians, the media has channels of mass manipulation. By the way, is the Economist financed by strategic forces and interest groups we are not told about? The latter seems the most logical explanation.
“For the good of his country, he should resign” and “Sounds familiar? … Donald Trump” give the Economist’s intentions all away. The Economist also runs an anti-Trump campaign and tried to get Hillary Clinton elected back in 2016.
So who else “should resign” under the commandments of the Economist? “Why Park-Geun-hye should resign” (South Korea’s president). Remember Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s former president, “should now resign.” And who doesn’t recall the hit piece on India’s Narenda Modi that he “shouldn’t become prime minister.” How about the “containing Jair Bolsonaro,” Brazil’s new president?
The Economist is undeniably ‘a political actor’, meddling into foreign politics, and belongs in that category and under the legalities for such affairs, so that the people, when more evidences come to bear, can call for the resignation of the Economist’s corrupt board of editors.