Economist on Fisk
Rather good review on Robert Fisk’s new book in this week’s Economist:
Mr Fisk is a gifted writer and an accomplished storyteller, so those who have not read him before will enjoy the famous correspondent’s colourful narrative. Mr Fisk tries to tell the story of the Middle East, but he does not flinch from telling the story of Mr Fisk. So here is not only a record of what he has seen and reported since 1976 in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Algeria and many other dusty and violent places, but also a tale of how he got the lead, wangled the flight, bribed the guard and brought home the scoop. The Times offered Mr Fisk the Middle East when he was only 29, and his love affair with the region and the glamorous profession of being a foreign correspondent finds expression on every page.
The Economist’s editorial line, which is largely pro-Israel and neo-conservative (and, increasingly, rather defensive about it), does not prevent it from giving Fisk a thumbs-up despite a few caveats.
Categories: General.
The Economist actually complaining about Robert Fisk being self-congratulatory and overtly self-obasessed? Don’t worry, I’m sure that the Economist and the friends of Israel are much better at that than Fisk will ever be.
The economist is neocon? You know nothing about it pal. It’s libertarian and anti-conservative.
As someone who reads the Economist almost every week and has for a long time, I think I can safely say it has drifted from a pseudo-libertarian, establishment point of view towards a more neo-con one, particularly with regards to Middle East policy. In particular it is quite uncritical of the Bush administration even when its policies go against traditional pro-business conservativism. (It’s true it is not socially conservative, but then neither are the neo-cons.) But it remains conservative in terms of being old style pro-big business. But I don’t think it was as blindly “market fundamentalist” a few years ago, although perhaps I’m wrong. Its tone has also changed another issues - I remember an attack on the archbishop of Canterbury which was very stupidly worded in terms of separation of church and state, a concept that does not exist in Britain, where the Queen is head of state and of church.