[Marazan]

My main complaint with the Economist (as a subscriber) is that it doesn't display it's biases openly - it often presents controversial economic or social positions as settled fact in a neutral style. If you didn't know the subject it was writing on you would think they were presenting the orthodox position.

[dredmorbius]

it doesn't display it's biases openly

It actually does for some of them, in its prospectus, mentioned by me earlier in this thread.

http://www.economist.com/node/1873493

Wikipedia's article has more on the Newspaper's history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist

[gcv]

If you didn't catch The Economist's biases on a cursory reading of one issue, that's on you. Simply skimming one of the leader opinion pieces and comparing it to, e.g., a Krugman column, should tell you that the authors would come to blows.

Besides, what is an "orthodox" position? Whose?

[Marazan]

I'm not talking about their overall world view I'm talking about their "Coffee growing in Guatamala" or "Cement production in the far east" articles - the ones where they are providing information on a relatively obscure subject. The articles present very matter of fact tones when in reality they are often reporting on one side of genuinely contraversial issues.

[techbio]

I prefer my reading to ignore the "teach the controversy" camp.

[Marazan]

I'm not talking about lame "1 dissenter out of a million style" fake controversy, I'm talking about when experts are split 50/50 on an issue.