[baragiola]

Exactly, they are by far the less biased news outlet I read. For instance, they explicitly don't support Trump, but don't hesitate to say "Trump is right about X", or "Trump did well on Y". They also don't support the Chinese PC, but don't hesitate on giving recommendations that would help them fix their problems (knowing that the Chinese elite read The Economist)

[js2]

Saying they aren’t biased doesn’t mean they don’t have a viewpoint, which they themselves disclose:

“We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our public agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We have supported free trade ever since our foundation in 1843 when we opposed Britain’s corn laws, which sought to keep the price of grain high by limiting imports. We have continued to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, such as same-sex marriage and legalisation of drugs, regardless of whether they are politically popular, in the belief that the force of argument will eventually prevail.”

https://www.economist.com/about-the-economist#editorial-phil...

I know people who would call that biased.

Disclosure: I’m a subscriber.

[nxc18]

Thanks for raising this. I listen to the economist (big fan of their podcasts) as well as occasionally reading.

I remember being somewhat shocked to discover that not only do they have a strong bias towards liberalism, but they aren't afraid to talk about it.

They absolutely are biased, but they tell you how and why right up front which is rather refreshing.

[dragonwriter]

> For instance, they explicitly don't support Trump, but don't hesitate to say "Trump is right about X", or "Trump did well on Y".

Being willing to praise someone you oppose in general when they align with your bias isn't the same as not having bias.