The Man vs. The Economist
One drawback to the anonymity of The Economist's authors: You don't know who to blame when someone gets something really, really wrong. Timothy Virkkala points to one recent example—a discussion of Herbert Spencer written by someone who doesn't seem to have read any Spencer.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Virkkala overstates his case. He complains that the Economist writer implied that Darwin came before Spencer because he the article says that Spencer was a “disciple” of Darwin, but the article explicitly says that some of Spencer’s work was released before Origin of Species. Virkkala might argue that the article uses the word disciple improperly, but the author of the article clearly has essentially the same opinion of the relationship between Spencer and Darwin as Virkkala.
This is truly embarassing for The Economist. One of Spencer’s few intellectual influences (he really was incredibly original) was Economist editor Thomas Hodgskin. Hodgskin gave Spencer his first break into the writing game.
The Economist has a pretty good record for a mag that churns out so much information on a weekly basis. But sometimes their shit is just sloppy.