Here’s a letter to the editor I sent to The Economist:
Sir—I’m confused. In the print edition, your leader about Daniel Ortega’s election (“Dealing With Daniel.” November 11th) stated, “Enlightened government of the left, combining market economics with effective social policy, would be a bad thing.” The online version of the article claims that it “would not be a bad thing.” I mostly read the print edition; does The Economist tell its online readers that it considers Guantanamo Bay a lovely getaway for suspected Taliban, the demise of the Doha trade round fantastic, and Silvio Berlusconi the best thing to happen to democracy since Thomas Jefferson?
Since long-time editor Bill Emmott left the paper earlier this year, the quality of the copy has slipped. I read about a quarter of the magazine each week and usually find at least one mistake. Prior to Emmott’s departure it was close to flawless.