[pdubbs90]

I find the BBC and the Economist good for this reason. They are/seem a lot less biased than U.S. stuff through some combination of higher standards and that they'd rather manipulate the emotions of Europeans than Americans (and I am an American).

[RodericDay]

The Economist is not an unbiased publication. It exists for the explicit purpose of arguing for the liberalization of markets.

edit: classic anti-left liberal, not "american progressive" liberal

[lz400]

To a certain extent, yes. But they have plenty of articles where they argue that governments need to step in and regulate this and that. It's markedly different from true libertarian sources like the Mises institute, etc.

[mmirate]

> [classical liberalization] of markets

That sounds like an awesome goal! Why the negative tone?

(by the way, "anti-Left" isn't a complete description of classical liberalism, since the Right is tainted by authoritarianisms such as cronyism, drug prohibition, social conservatism, etc.)

[anigbrowl]

It's not a negative tone, the poster is just observing that the Economist has bias. I have no problem with its bias considering that it's clearly stated on a regular basis; I've read it for years and greatly respect it even though I don't agree with its editorial stance.

[RodericDay]

Give this essay a read: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/05/how-the-economist-thi...

> The Economist is not, therefore, an honest examiner of the facts. It is constantly at pains not to risk conclusions that may hurt the case for unregulated markets. This tendency reached its absurd apotheosis in the magazine’s infamous 2014 review of Edward Baptist’s The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism. The magazine objected to Baptist’s brutal depiction of the slave trade, saying the book did not qualify as “an objective history of slavery” because “almost all the blacks in his book are victims, almost all the whites villains.” When outraged readers pointed out that this is because, well, the victims of slavery tended to be black, The Economist retracted the review. But as Baptist observed in response, there was a reason why the magazine felt the need to mitigate the evils of slavery. Baptist’s book portrayed slavery as an integral part of the history of capitalism. As he wrote: “If slavery was profitable—and it was—then it creates an unforgiving paradox for the moral authority of markets—and market fundamentalists. What else, today, might be immoral and yet profitable?” The implications of Baptist’s work would have unsettling implications for The Economist. They would damn the foundations of the very Western free enterprise system that the magazine is devoted to championing. Thus The Economist needed to find a way to soften its verdict on slavery. (It was not the first time they had done so, either. In a tepid review of Greg Grandin’s The Empire of Necessity with the hilariously offensive title of “Slavery: Not Black or White,” the magazine lamented that “the horrors in Mr Grandin’s history are unrelenting.” And the magazine’ long tradition of defending misery stretches back to the 19th century, when it blamed the Irish potato famine on irresponsible decisions made by destitute peasants.)

[tonyedgecombe]

A lot of the bias is in the eye of the beholder, whoever is in government in the UK will complain about the BBC's bias.

[pdubbs90]

This is why I said "seem." Everything has some bias, but I think foreign publications usually have a less-relevant-to-me bias, which is about as close to unbiased as I can get.