Reason Over Politics

Abstract

Adopting a critical perspective, this article examines how journalism has historically addressed austerity by analysing the austerity debates of the influential business magazine The Economist from 1947 to 2012. By analysing 131 articles with a qualitative frame analysis approach, I show how The Economist has used an enduring frame by which to position itself as the voice of reason against the irrationality of politics. It has typically framed austerity as necessary in times of economic distress, and political demands that contradict austerity have often been deemed irrational. In 2012, during the euro crisis, The Economist, however, framed German-driven austerity as obsessive and called for a pragmatic position on austerity. I argue that this frame of "reason over politics" is characteristic of modern journalism, which is committed to the post-ideological norm of objectivity.

The Economist’s depoliticisation of European austerity and the constitution of a ‘euphemised’ neoliberal discourse

“…The results of this article bear similarities with other studies on austerity, neoliberalism and the media. The article supports research findings emphasising that journalism has been incapable of challenging the dominant neoliberal discourses, which prioritise economic imperatives over democratic and political claims and render anti-austerity claims irrational or unreasonable (Harjuniemi, 2018;Kantola, 2007;Kelsey, Mueller, Whittle & KhosraviNik, 2016;Power et al, 2016). However, the article also found that The Economist evoked a nuanced debate on the effects of austerity in Europe; it was highly critical of European political elites, blaming them for being fixated on deepening the economic plight of Europe with ever-harsher austerity measures.…”

“…Indeed, The Economist has traits that connect it with the more mainstream Western journalistic identity (Harjuniemi, 2018). Journalists have traditionally seen themselves as serving the people as the objective 'watchdog' (Deuze, 2005;Hanitzsch, 2011) of democracy, a professional identity comprised of such elements as truthfulness, independence, fairness and balance (Nerone, 2013;Tuchman, 1972).…”

“…The antagonistic 'us-them' (Mylonas, 2014, p. 310) distinction runs between the analytical Economist readership, also known as the smart 'Ideas People' (Becken, 2014, p. 127), and the irrational members of the public, politicians or the vested interests, who might be tempted to derail liberalism and globalisation for short-sighted political reasons. In post-political fashion, such conflicts can be reconciled and a consensus achieved through cool reason and by abiding by the facts of economic reality (Harjuniemi, 2018). Taking this point into consideration, it is no wonder that the magazine positions itself in the 'radical centre', being beyond the traditional left-right political spectrum (The Economist, 2013).…”

“…On many occasions, The Economist presented austerity and structural reforms as part of the natural modernisation process of European welfare states (see Borriello, 2017;Harjuniemi, 2018).…”

“…I argue that the distinction is useful when analysing how the articulatory logics of neoliberal discourses play out in media with different 'journalistic identities' (Salter, 2018), which affect how different media see their place in society and how they treat political and economic issues. Elite journalism, of which The Economist is a prime example, tends to adopt a style of being beyond the ideological grandstanding of politics (Harjuniemi, 2018). When catering to its demanding audience of sophisticated readers and global decision makers, The Economist places itself in the 'radical centre' of politics, beyond the traditional left-right spectrum (The Economist, 2013).…”