Interesting and informative but not unbiased
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“And they need to read up on their history.
All in all, I like this podcast and frequently listen. What’s most noticeable and disappointing for me, though, is how frequently the podcast makes blanket declarations either unsupported by history or facts or simply glossed over. For example, a recent episode focusing on the Supreme Court tried to make the case that only recently, with Bourke, has the Court become politicized. That is out and out false; look at the history and you find that justices were commonly in Congress or had been in Congress (one had even been President) or lawyers and close friends with whomever was in the Oval Office at the time. The Court was always political.
Another recent episode bemoaned the loss of objectivity in journalism. This is also false. Edward R. Murrow aside (and he was a fine journalist, don’t get me wrong, but he was never not biased), news media have been more or less explicit in their bias from the beginning. Go read the mudslinging of the various news factions during the Jefferson and Adams campaign if you’ve any doubts. The news has never been solely just the facts or objective. Facts can be presented in a way to further an unstated aim or bias.
So...while this is good, it is also less critical of itself and its sometimes sweeping proclamations than it should be. That’s not to say I don’t learn new and interesting tidbits, but the podcast is fairly unabashed in its leanings and hardly the last word. Listen with a bit of skepticism and be prepared to do your own fact-checking.”
OregonKatana via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
06/27/20
More reviews of Checks and Balance from The Economist
“Love the show, makes me think and always finish knowing more. Thanks!”
FakeCleric via Apple Podcasts ·
Canada ·
04/21/20
“Checks and Balance, usually great show - however vote by mail the group just blew past any discussion to telling us what we should do. There is a conversation but telling us without regard to the details - unusual for your program. Sad to see the lack of discussion and narrow minded opinion....”Read full review »
moving on-missu via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
04/19/20
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“So thoroughly disgusted with the intro wordplay on the concepts of death, dead on arrival, etc., including the tragic crash early in Biden’s career. The Economist is smart, but that level of insensitivity lacks enough heart to make me doubt and drop this podcast.”
stacey_vl via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
03/06/20
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
Listen now
Links
Genres
Artwork or description wrong?
Request an update »
Updates may take a few minutes.
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
