The Economist on Catalona's Independence Setbacks and a Response

CATALONIA’S referendum on independence, planned for November 9th, will not now happen. Or might it, after all? On October 14th the Catalan president, Artur Mas, admitted that, with the referendum officially suspended by Spain’s constitutional court, it would have to be scrapped. But, he added, some other sort of public consultation will still happen on that day—and it will involve ballot boxes.

Mr Mas refused to provide details. He claimed that he did not want to give the Spanish prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, too many clues about his plans. Given the legal obstacles, even Mr Mas may not be sure how to proceed. Catalonia’s more radical and leftist separatists were angered by his decision to obey the court while calling for a watered-down, pseudo-referendum. They want an early election in this rich and populous region of north-east Spain. Mr Mas is trying to deflect the separatists’ claims of cowardice by ramping up the war of words. “The Spanish state is the adversary,” he declared.

link.

To The Editors Of The Economist

I am writing this missive addressed to you as I am outraged, nay scandalized, by the level of your reporting on the Catalan question. The source of my discontent are two recent pieces – both signed by one GT – the first of which appeared on the Charlemagne Blog (Getting to “sí”, 19 September 2014), while the second was published under the rubric The Economist Explains (Catalonia’s independence movement,14 October 2014.)

Of the two, I consider the second much more reproachable since it purports to be an informative document, and not a mere opinion piece. My issue with your journalist is not his opinion – to which any journalist is entitled – but that he attempts to pass off opinion as fact. My view is the that the level of journalism being demonstrated is not what you should be seeking in a publication with your high level of international prestige.

At the end of the day, of course, whether this is the case or not is an editorial decision on your part. I fully understand why the Economist originally took the decision to publish non-editorial unsigned articles, but in the modern age I think this be a double edged sword as it leads to confusion about what is an Op-ed and what isn’t. Personally I think the practice is now more trouble than it’s worth, but again that’s for you to decide.

In order to try and demonstrate my case I have gone to the rather tedious lengths of re-reading the two offending articles and identifying what I consider to be factual inaccuracies (see below).

response link.