Wednesday, March 08, 2006
The Economist hearts Dan Savage
Depressed over my funding, I've been reading back "Savage Love" articles on the Onion website, and caught this (please someone tell Preetom about this; I don't think she reads my blog, but I think she would enjoy this particular exchange --)
Dear Dan Savage: I was flattered to hear that you and your readers had picked up our reference to santorum in The Economist, but I just wanted to disagree with—or hope to disagree with—your reader who ventured that they were unusual in reading both Savage Love and The Economist. I hope very much they are not. Although nonreaders often think of us as a conservative magazine, we've actually always been socially highly liberal, whether on immigration, gay rights, or many other things, including favouring the legalization of drugs. The Economist was among the first mainstream publications, on either side of the Atlantic, to advocate legal recognition of gay partnerships when I ran a cover on the subject in 1996 and then another in 2004.(From the February 15, 2006 Savage Love)
Our readership is younger than that of other current-affairs or business publications, and I like to think that, like us writers, they are thoughtful, intelligent folk. But you were right: It is not only gay activists who use the term santorum in that way. Maybe being edited in London explains why we got that wrong.
Bill Emmott, Editor
The Economist, London
Thanks for being a big enough editor to admit that you were wrong, Bill. I was about to call for the entire staff of The Economist to be beheaded, but hey, now there's no need. But could you print the definition for your readers who aren't familiar with it?
jane 5:46 PM [+]