Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 3,4 (click to see context) from:
** Subverted [[http://www.economist.com/node/8133766 after this article]], which predicted in 2006 that America wouldn't have a recession because "America's economy has consistently defied its naysayers". Combined with the above one would think it would have done more damage to the magazine but they've actually walked away from it relatively scot free (compared to what happened to economists who made similar mistakes anyways).
* UnfortunateImplications: An ad campaign of theirs aimed at women used their traditional brand of humor when it said on the front, "Why should women read ''The Economist''? They shouldn't." Then, on the inside, it said "Accomplished and intelligent '''people''' should read it." Even some women who made it to the punchline on the inside [[http://www.good.is/post/why-should-women-read-the-economist/?utm_content=headline&utm_medium=hp_carousel&utm_source=slide_1 got offended]], taking it to mean that a female point of view (the magazine's staff is mostly male) was invalid.
* UnfortunateImplications: An ad campaign of theirs aimed at women used their traditional brand of humor when it said on the front, "Why should women read ''The Economist''? They shouldn't." Then, on the inside, it said "Accomplished and intelligent '''people''' should read it." Even some women who made it to the punchline on the inside [[http://www.good.is/post/why-should-women-read-the-economist/?utm_content=headline&utm_medium=hp_carousel&utm_source=slide_1 got offended]], taking it to mean that a female point of view (the magazine's staff is mostly male) was invalid.
to:
** Subverted [[http://www.economist.com/node/8133766 after this article]], which predicted in 2006 that America wouldn't have a recession because "America's economy has consistently defied its naysayers". Combined with the above one would think it would have done more damage to the magazine but they've actually walked away from it relatively scot free (compared to what happened to economists who made similar mistakes anyways).
* UnfortunateImplications: An ad campaign of theirs aimed at women used their traditional brand of humor when it said on the front, "Why should women read ''The Economist''? They shouldn't." Then, on the inside, it said "Accomplished and intelligent '''people''' should read it." Even some women who made it to the punchline on the inside [[http://www.good.is/post/why-should-women-read-the-economist/?utm_content=headline&utm_medium=hp_carousel&utm_source=slide_1 got offended]], taking it to mean that a female point of view (the magazine's staff is mostly male) was invalid.anyways).
* UnfortunateImplications: An ad campaign of theirs aimed at women used their traditional brand of humor when it said on the front, "Why should women read ''The Economist''? They shouldn't." Then, on the inside, it said "Accomplished and intelligent '''people''' should read it." Even some women who made it to the punchline on the inside [[http://www.good.is/post/why-should-women-read-the-economist/?utm_content=headline&utm_medium=hp_carousel&utm_source=slide_1 got offended]], taking it to mean that a female point of view (the magazine's staff is mostly male) was invalid.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* NeverLiveItDown: So far their failure to predict the downfall of the Scandinavian welfare state has not left them in very good standing with the centre-left or much of Sweden, Norway, etc. It doesn't help that they came off across as slightly giddy by the idea that these economies would collapse (since they are social democracies).
to:
* NeverLiveItDown: NeverLiveItDown:
** So far their failure to predict the downfall of the Scandinavian welfare state has not left them in very good standing with the centre-left or much of Sweden, Norway, etc. It doesn't help that they came off across as slightly giddy by the idea that these economies would collapse (since they are social democracies).
** So far their failure to predict the downfall of the Scandinavian welfare state has not left them in very good standing with the centre-left or much of Sweden, Norway, etc. It doesn't help that they came off across as slightly giddy by the idea that these economies would collapse (since they are social democracies).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
* UnfortunateImplications: An ad campaign of theirs aimed at women used their traditional brand of humor when it said on the front, "Why should women read ''TheEconomist''? They shouldn't." Then, on the inside, it said "Accomplished and intelligent '''people''' should read it." Even some women who made it to the punchline on the inside [[http://www.good.is/post/why-should-women-read-the-economist/?utm_content=headline&utm_medium=hp_carousel&utm_source=slide_1 got offended]], taking it to mean that a female point of view (the magazine's staff is mostly male) was invalid.
to:
* UnfortunateImplications: An ad campaign of theirs aimed at women used their traditional brand of humor when it said on the front, "Why should women read ''TheEconomist''? ''The Economist''? They shouldn't." Then, on the inside, it said "Accomplished and intelligent '''people''' should read it." Even some women who made it to the punchline on the inside [[http://www.good.is/post/why-should-women-read-the-economist/?utm_content=headline&utm_medium=hp_carousel&utm_source=slide_1 got offended]], taking it to mean that a female point of view (the magazine's staff is mostly male) was invalid.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Style guidelines on Subverted Trope page recommend against using the phrase \"subverted hard\".
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
* NeverLiveItDown: So far their failure to predict the downfall of the Scandenavian welfare state has not left them in very good standing with the centre-left or much of Sweden, Norway, etc. It doesn't help that they came off across as slightly giddy by the idea that these economies would collapse (since they are social democracies).
** Subverted hard [[http://www.economist.com/node/8133766 after this article]], which predicted in 2006 that America wouldn't have a recession because "America's economy has consistently defied its naysayers". Combined with the above one would think it would have done more damage to the magazine but they've actually walked away from it relatively scot free (compared to what happened to economists who made similar mistakes anyways).
** Subverted hard [[http://www.economist.com/node/8133766 after this article]], which predicted in 2006 that America wouldn't have a recession because "America's economy has consistently defied its naysayers". Combined with the above one would think it would have done more damage to the magazine but they've actually walked away from it relatively scot free (compared to what happened to economists who made similar mistakes anyways).
to:
* NeverLiveItDown: So far their failure to predict the downfall of the Scandenavian Scandinavian welfare state has not left them in very good standing with the centre-left or much of Sweden, Norway, etc. It doesn't help that they came off across as slightly giddy by the idea that these economies would collapse (since they are social democracies).
** Subvertedhard [[http://www.economist.com/node/8133766 after this article]], which predicted in 2006 that America wouldn't have a recession because "America's economy has consistently defied its naysayers". Combined with the above one would think it would have done more damage to the magazine but they've actually walked away from it relatively scot free (compared to what happened to economists who made similar mistakes anyways).
** Subverted
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* NeverLiveItDown: So far their failure to predict the downfall of the Scandenavian welfare state has not left them in very good standing with the centre-left or much of Sweden, Norway, etc. It doesn't help that they came off across as slightly giddy by the idea that these economies would collapse (since they are social democracies).
**Subverted hard [[http://www.economist.com/node/8133766 after this article]], which predicted in 2006 that America wouldn't have a recession because "America's economy has consistently defied its naysayers". Combined with the above one would think it would have done more damage to the magazine but they've actually walked away from it relatively scot free (compared to what happened to economists who made similar mistakes anyways).
**Subverted hard [[http://www.economist.com/node/8133766 after this article]], which predicted in 2006 that America wouldn't have a recession because "America's economy has consistently defied its naysayers". Combined with the above one would think it would have done more damage to the magazine but they've actually walked away from it relatively scot free (compared to what happened to economists who made similar mistakes anyways).
