Anon seems to have the typical desi reaction that only sill hindus can be biased and not great goras from the Economist.

Mr Nevermind the qualified scientist strangely the same criticisms you have of Sandeep could apply to you ! Can you indentify any Pillars of Nehruvian Socialist India that have stood the test of time ? Socialism ? No Policy to China,US or USSR/Russia ? No
Kashmir and the UN ? No Any areas of success ? Maybe creating a dynasty that came to run by an corrupt Italian madam ….

http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=10127&IBLOCK_ID=35

Economist, putting the ’s’ back in limey :).

After reading that article, I canceled my subscription to Economist.I guess current British-ness had to infect the magazine sometime.

Nevermind, keep it going…

My favourite sections of your thoroughly enjoyable post are the following-

1)Where you cite an earlier point-of-view post by yourself (rich in opinion and a bit sparse in facts) as valid and reliable proof of the Economist’s ”lack of awareness of basic facts”. Two words spring to mind. Pot. Kettle.

2)Where you link to the Economist’s country profile of India, “which contains a wealth of information that sometimes borders on being incorrect”. “Sometimes” and “borders on being incorrect” are, I believe, slightly different from “Mostly” and “factually incorrect”. Another word comes to mind. Spin. But that’s a clever use of English, I must admit. Well done.

3)Where you confidently state that “apart from a select circle, Nehru stands discredited on almost all fronts”. The valid and reliable proof for this is of course, another opinion post by yourself, another blog post that borrows heavily from a piece in that esteemed international newspaper, ‘The New York Sun’ and an op-ed piece by the erm…… eminent sociologist and historian, Rajeev Srinivasan. To borrow your own words, apart from a select circle…of three? I wonder whether that reads s(usp)ect. Or maybe we’ll just have to accept your word for it. And that word is of course scientifically valid and reliable, unlike that of the Economist.

4)Now onto my favourite bit. To support the claim that “Hindus persistently worry that Indian Muslims are a fifth column”, you state that this is based on reality, since (the) “majority of the recent terror attacks on India were carried out by Indian Muslims indoctrinated in Pakistan and/or Bangladesh”. So far, so good. Point taken.

But then, you just had to go on, didn’t you? To reinforce your point further, you quote ‘Nitin’ who actually said, “It’s surprising how many things The Economist’s correspondent doesn’t know and yet goes on to make rather bold conclusions. Despite the near certainty of local Muslims being involved in the blasts, to extend this and suggest that India’s or even Hyderabad’s Muslims “probably” played a “supporting role” is absurd”.

Duh..uh!? Two more words. Foot. Mouth.

Now, I could work my way down your post systematically, but life is short, you see. However, the next time you undertake a so called ‘factual critique’, I suggest filling the first floor with some furniture. And hope that some bored scientist (of the qualified variety) doesn’t stumble on your post.

And, oh, do read up about validity and reliability, will you? Thanks.

By golly, bias indeed expresses itself in surprising ways. The stridency beneath the veneer of “reasonable” here is no less acute than the ill-feigned disdain towards Sandeep’s article. I think “reasonable people” also will blanch before juxtaposing the bias of a published weekly and that of a blog.

That the Economist article is deeply prejudiced between the chief subjects of its report is apparent from the language it employs. That such a thing is bad journalism is widely accepted, amongst “reasonable people” no less. Yet some people manage to condone it!

I’ve updated my feed to always show full text. Please let me know if it works.

Thanks for letting me know.

That is the one that made me laugh. I read this Economist article before you wrote your post, Sandeep. And of all I found the above statement the most ridiculous. I am of the opinion that a magazine needs to have a pretty silly and unrelaible source to come up with akkad-bakkad-bambay-bo like that.

The article seems to take a balanced stand based on the facts it assumes. It’s only that some of those facts are…em…ridiculous ‘non-facts’.

By the way Sandeep, there is one Vedantist who stayed in the congress, his name is Dumbledore.

And dear Anon,

You say you are not an expert on the subject but yet trust the seemingly balanced article by the Economist. But the sad problem here is that since you are not an expert on the subject, no matter how many times you do a comparitive reading of Sandeep’s article and the economists, you wont be able to tell the non-facts from facts. Your judgement will end up being based only on the seeming balance and impartiality that the economist has engineered into the article (to stay in business in todays yuppy world) vs the writings of our friend Sandeep who likes the politically incorrect style and uses this blog to vent of the steam of everyday life ( hey Sandeep take this in humour).

Nonetheless, Sandeep seems to know more in this case, no matter how shrill the pitch of his writing is.

As for the Economist, I still think they had a moderate tone and an intelligent depiction on this one. But they were super-inaccurate on some things they mention in passing as facts. And that makes for poor journalism.