On Media Blog Archives Select Date… December, 2015 November, 2015 October, 2015 September, 2015 August, 2015 July, 2015 June, 2015 May, 2015 April, 2015 March, 2015 February, 2015 January, 2015

Economist's D.C. chief dies in car crash

The Economist's Peter David | Photo by Nephi Niven (used with the photographer's permission).

Peter David, The Economist's Washington bureau chief and Lexington columnist, died in a car accident on Thursday night, the magazine reports today. He was 60.

David had been with the London-based magazine for 28 years. He became British political editor and Bagehot columnist in 1998 and then foreign editor in 2001, before assuming the D.C. bureau chief chair in 2009. As author of the Lexington column, he wrote frequently about U.S. politics and business.

"He had worked at The Economist since 1984 and was a much-loved colleague and friend," the editors said in a statement on the magazine's homepage. "We will pay fuller tribute to him in next week’s issue."

The car accident occurred last night at 9:45 p.m. on Interstate 64 in Albemarle County, Virginia, according to a report by the local NBC affiliate there. David was riding with three others, all of whom were taken to the University of Virginia Medical Center for treatment. The driver of the other car was charged with reckless driving. David was the only casualty. (The report incorrectly states David's age as 70.)

David's wife Celia was also in the car and is being released from the hospital today, according to colleagues. The couple has two children who live in the UK.

David's final column for the magazine, published in the current issue, addressed theories of American decline.

"On a variety of objective measures, it is in an awful mess right now," he concluded. "And yet America of all countries still has plenty of grounds to hope for a better future, despite its underperforming politics, and no matter who triumphs in November."

Ed Luce, the Financial Times' chief U.S. commentator in Washington, emails:

Peter was a wise, kind and experienced veteran of the best kind of international journalism. He was clearly relishing what was to be his last job before retiring from the Economist. This is a horrible tragedy.

Zanny Minton Beddoes, The Economist's economics editor in London, emails:

Peter was an outstanding journalist and a wonderful colleague. He was one of the most talented writers I have ever met, and one of the most humble, funny and generous people I've ever come across. I shall miss him terribly.

Ryan Avent, The Economist's economics correspondent in Washington, emails:

Peter was an incredibly kind and generous colleague. I greatly admired his dispassion, his wit, and his deft pen. It was a privilege and a joy to work with him and learn from him. I can't believe we've lost him. I will miss him very much.

Gideon Lichfield, The Economist's media editor in New York, emails:

Peter was a great journalist in the best British tradition. Utterly self-effacing, he liked to wander the corridors pretending he had nothing to do and didn't really understand anything anyway; but he could take the murkiest issue, see clear through to the other side of it, and write a withering but never vicious critique in prose of wonderful balance and wit. His legacy is a lesson too often forgotten: that it is possible to take the world seriously without taking oneself too seriously in the process.

Greg Ip, The Economist's economics editor in Washington, emails:

Peter personified The Economist in countless ways: witty, erudite, self-effacing, British. He also shared the newspaper's instinctive philo-Americanism. Peter and I would often debate whether American politics were hopelessly dysfunctional and the country in inexorable decline. When he first arrived in 2009, Peter leaned toward the conventional, pessimistic interpretation, while I favored a more optimistic outlook. Over the next two years we changed places; as I despaired more over the polarization of our politics, Peter came to see in it the essence of what makes America vital. When the shooting of Gabby Giffords turned into a debate over the rancour of political discourse , Peter pleaded in a blog post not to lose sight of how constructive that discourse can be: Americans take it for granted, but the first thing that strikes a visitor is that this is a country where fundamental questions are constantly aired, argued and litigated over - the size of government and the limits of its power, the meaning of equality under the law, when life begins, you name it. It is hardly surprising in this protean atmosphere that there should be a good deal of rancour. But it's unique and invigorating too. It is in fact a breath of fresh air after the soggy centralist consensus that usually prevails in Britain and much of Western Europe. Just last Monday he and I had another long back and forth about the politics of decline; he once again held out against my dark foreboding and it was fitting that his final column reflected his fundamental optimism about America.

Gideon Rachman, the Financial Times' chief foreign affairs commentator in London, emails:

At various times at The Economist, Peter was my boss, and I was (technically) his boss. He was a wonderful colleague in both roles. When I edited the Britain section, Peter was the Bagehot columnist. He was an editor's dream - he delivered brilliant columns and was unfailingly charming and good-humoured. Later, when I was Brussels correspondent, Peter was my foreign editor. It was he who suggested that I take over the Charlemagne column - when I expressed some doubts, he reassured me that I would make a success of it. In retrospect, Peter did me a huge favour - launching my career as a columnist at The Economist and the FT. I owe him a huge debt of gratitude and will miss his friendship, shrewdness and humour.

Jon Fasman, The Economist's correspondent in Atlanta, emails:

Peter was generous, kind, curious, patient and good-humoured. His affable, diffident demeanour masked a dangerously sharp mind, just as his sharp mind gave way to a profoundly kind, sweet, decent soul. He had an uncanny ability to get to the heart of an issue in unstintingly clear prose. With younger colleagues he was patient, warm and decent, and I owe my position as a writer at The Economist in no small part to his encouragement. Just a few days ago we were discussing his coming (first) visit to Atlanta, and I was looking forward to showing him the city, and to seeing it better for having seen it in his company.