主题：怪不得经济学家臭大街：《经济学人》称印度超越中国迟早的事 -- 加东

In this case, the article in The Economist is so clearly and heavily filled with emotionally loaded, manipulative words and phrases, it is fairly obviously nothing but deliberate propaganda. Virtually every sentence of the article is not a statement of fact, but a declaration of opinion.

Village elections were tried and found wanting. The scenario was that too many people in each village knew all the people who were running for office personally. Personal relations got in the way of good government, for people who needed to live with each other for the rest of their lives, and thus wanted to get along. As well, naturally, the result of village officials was a fair amount of graft, bribery and corruption in general, favoring some villagers over others. At last report, the central bureaucrats are stll looking at the problem, and trying to figure out how to design a more efficient system of elections. The government of China has definitely not given up on their plan to provide a method of electing officials, starting with villages and working their way up the hierarchy.

Sensible GaTech Student wrote:

Oct 22nd 2010 2:09 GMT

"Disastrous, brittle, unraveled, unknown, monolithic, wrenching, secretive, eerie, obscure, excessive, glacial, explosions, discontent, resentment, callousness, grip on dissent, nationalist, irrational, paranoid, introspective, imperial, awkward, disappointing."

These are selected words you used to describe China throughout the article.

I'm no 50-cent party member, but this hysterical hyperbole lends itself to casual dismissal by those with a tendency to rational middle-ground seeking.

Economistrants wrote:

Oct 23rd 2010 3:22 GMT

After reading several posts, it seems that their is wide consensus on the part of the Economist readers that this article is embarassingly poor. It is frankly an insult to the Economist's reputation and to the intelligence of its readers to publish such a pathetic article, full of misleading and malicious content such as comparing Xi's sucession with that of Kin il Eun.

Nguoiphanbien wrote:

Oct 22nd 2010 6:37 GMT

When it comes to writing on China, the Economist is hopelessly pathetic, shamelessly propagandist, ridiculously self-righteous, excessively antagonistic, and foolishly insulting to the intelligence of its readers.

In so doing, the Economist has helped solidify the Chinese people's sense of suspicion of the West and doubt about the merits of unruly democracy and irresponsible freedom of speech.

thedogchaser wrote:

Oct 21st 2010 4:51 GMT

The Economist shows its skewed-up views every time when it publishes an article about China. You cannot be taken seriously when you equate the Chinese succession to that of North Korea's. It reveals how hysteric the West is about towards today's rising China, especially in Briton where people heads are still stuffed with their by-gone imperialism bs.

chcken little wrote: Oct 22nd 2010 7:57 GMT

This will be my last post to the Economist.

......

As to my first point, I surrender. There truly was a day when the Economist had stature and respect. Today, in my view, it is little more than another National Enquirer, a Right-Wing neocon rag producing little more than smart-assed flame-baiting drivel.

I will never look at another Economist in print and I will not return to this website. And yes I know you don't care; your right-wing constituency will always love you, and you will sell ads. Hair on ya.