What lies behind The Economist's narrative on Ceuta, the King's health, and the future of the throne?

A critical analysis questions the journalistic integrity of The Economist's recent article concerning Morocco, King Mohammed VI, and the future of the monarchy. The author argues that a media outlet's prestige does not exempt it from professional scrutiny, especially when reporting on matters of state and leadership.

The piece contends that The Economist's article appears to have started with a conclusion and then selected facts to support it, rather than conducting an investigation that allows evidence to lead to a conclusion. This approach, the author suggests, blurs the line between genuine reporting and a pre-selected narrative, raising questions about the publication's objectivity.

Specifically, the article scrutinizes the handling of the events in Ceuta. It posits that a proper investigation would delve into the preceding hours and days, exploring the spread of information, the motivations behind the surge of individuals, and the knowledge and actions of Moroccan and Spanish authorities. Instead, The Economist allegedly shifts focus quickly from Ceuta to the throne anniversary, protocol, and senior officials, bypassing a thorough examination of the crisis's root causes.

The author concludes that the central question is whether The Economist's investigation led them to the King, or if the King's image was the starting point, with subsequent research in areas like Ceuta, health, private life, the heir, the Sahara, and international relations serving only to fill out a pre-existing picture. This framing, it is argued, undermines the credibility of the report.