When I came to the United States many years ago, I used any change available as a student to subscribe to The Economist, Fortune, Businessweek (now Bloomberg Businessweek), Forbes and Harvard Business Review. I did not read newspapers; I read only magazines which provided insights and perspectives on business, economy and geopolitics. Engineering work for the week, learning business was for the weekend.
The Economist was special. However, over time, it evolved, losing, for me, what made it GREAT – unbiased, nuanced and insightful examinations of issues. For the new Economist, the world must be seen from the lens of the West; any deviation is a rebellion. I canceled.
When I saw that it said that Turkey’s leader must go for this weekend’s election, I felt bad. Its standards keep shifting. Like I told a Swiss friend, if Switzerland should join the Western world 100% against Russia and China, the world may be in a state where there is no mediator, and if that becomes the case, we’re finished in this world. Yes, we still need a respectable country that can say “Hey, the collective West, Russia, China, come together and talk over these issues”.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 16 (Feb 10 – May 3, 2025) opens registrations; register today for early bird discounts.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
Imagine a world without Turkey as Russia and Ukraine battle. Simply, what you may hate about Turkey is the reason it is vital to the world in this war; a mediator that can get two warring parties together even for marginal issues like shipping grains! Turkey may not align 100% with London; London should appreciate that because through Turkey, London can reach its enemies!
Who becomes the president of Turkey is irrelevant to me. But the standard to anoint “bad” and “good” should not be changing. The people of Turkey should decide who should go or stay, and not some guys in London!
Comment on Feed
Comment 1: Traditional business publications like the Economist should provide an object evaluation of business needs, outcomes, and affects without providing an opinionated commentary on either side. Showing their bias alienates a section of their readership and just as you proved it reduces subscription readrship. So overall a bad move on their part.
Beyond the Economist I’m getting annoyed by the partisan/nationalistic(fascist?) narrative and commentary happening around the globe. The broader global reality is almost everyone purchases goods from China, America, and Europe, many times made from products sourced in Africa, South America, and perhaps Canada. Enough with this decisiveness…..please!
My Response: You may wonder how many bad things happened pre-internet when there was no other way to know because some institutions controlled the news. The world is fractured. Russia fired some missiles today in Ukraine. In the Western world, journalists are showing the aftermath of destroyed homes; in RT, you see industrial warehouses. So, CNN will say homes were attacked; Russia is saying it destroyed warehouses. Certainly, there is no way to know who is telling the truth. But the web gives you access to the other side. If not, you can just take whatever CNN says as the home run.
Comment 2: he world is moving towards a dangerous place where both extremes are becoming stronger and the middle ground is becoming thinner.
We need a world where the middle ground is bigger and not thinner. I believe that most people in the world are in the middle, but the louder extremes on both sides are pushing us to the brink.
---
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA (Feb 10 - May 3, 2025), and join Prof Ndubuisi Ekekwe and our global faculty; click here.