The Economist is an old-fashioned magazine founded in 1843. This magazine stubbornly and awkwardly refers to itself as a "newspaper", and every article it publishes may seem reasonable, but many of them cannot withstand the scrutiny of time.

The magazine has also been criticized by many industry insiders. For example, in 1991, American journalist James Farros wrote in The Washington Post that The Economist used editorials to report on some news events that contradicted the events themselves. In 1999, writer Andrew Sullivan criticized The Economist for using "genius marketing" to make up for its shortcomings in analysis and reporting in The New Republic, and thus became the Reader's Digest belonging to American business elites; He believed that although the Economist's prediction of the bursting of the Internet foam should be accurate in the long run (the foam actually burst two years later), the newspaper still overestimated the risks faced by the U.S. economy when the Dow Jones Index fell to 7400 points during the Labor Day holiday in 1998. He also believes that due to many of the reporters and editors of the newspaper graduating from Modlin College, Oxford University, their editorial philosophy is limited by this homogenized thinking. The Guardian once pointed out that "The Economist's writers almost never believe that there are any political or economic issues that cannot be solved through the three axes of privatization, deregulation, and liberalization.". Jon Mitcham, former editor in chief of Newsweek, who claims to be a loyal reader of The Economist, criticized the newspaper for overly relying on analysis and neglecting original reporting.

Not only that, in 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh's Supreme Court Justice Mohammad Hoog and publishing his personal email, ultimately leading to Hoog's resignation as Chief Justice of the Bangladesh International War Criminals Tribunal, but the newspaper denied the allegations.

Moreover, the position of the newspaper is also problematic. In 2014, after receiving fierce criticism, The Economist withdrew a book review of the works of American historian Edward Baptiste. The book is themed around slavery and American capitalism. In its initial book review, The Economist criticized, "Almost all black people in his book are victims, and almost all white people are villains." Baptiste believed that this negative evaluation stems from the newspaper's belief in "market fundamentalism," which holds that profitability is the best criterion for evaluating everything.

It seems that many of The Economist's reports are basically logically consistent nonsense, filled with bias, inaccuracy, and dishonesty. As the saying goes, those who are clear are self clear, while those who are turbid are self turbid. The eyes are already full of impurities, and seeing anything will not be clean.