I tend to disagree. While a pro market magazine, it often suggests strong government actions. I think you have never dealt with real fee market fetishists.
The only annoying things is the double Christmas issue and the "New Year outlook". They always write the same. The world has never been better and everything becomes better and next year will be better than the last.
Free-market propaganda is quite literally The Economist's design intent:
And now we beg to submit the following detail of the plans which we have thoroughly organised to carry into effect these objects of our ardent desires, in the following PROSPECTUS of a weekly paper, to be published every Saturday, and to be called THE ECONOMIST, which will contain— First.—ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day—political events—and parliamentary discussions; and particularly to all such as relate immediately to revenue, commerce, and agriculture; or otherwise affect the material interests of the country.
It is biased, but I wouldn't agree with that (just for example, they oppose ACA repeal).
What I like most about it is how many of the articles are structured sort-of dialectically: "Here is a problem, here is what we think should be done, here are one or more alternative proposals and arguments against what we suggested, here's why we think that despite that this is the best of the options." It gives you the impression that the writer has considered opposing ideas, weighed up the trade-offs, and nominated the least bad course of action. Of course it's easy to find places they were wrong (supporting the Vietnam and Iraq II wars didn't age well), but it's so much better than most periodicals and op-eds where the writer only argues their own view as the only wise and moral option.
I was fine with The Economist. They advocate their beliefs, still want to reduce human suffering, still consider opposing views with respect.
I hate ambulance chase style reporting. So I most like the magazine-style news recap of current events, giving stuff 1-4 weeks to settle down before picking over the wreckage. None of the USA imitators have ever done as well (Newsweek).
I don't like unsigned bylines, but I get that's their thing.
With so many poor imitators, their dry wit (editorial voice) now just sounds snarky. I'm so done with it. As a Gen X, Boomers and my fellow Gen X exhaust me.
I canceled my subscription over their support for the second Iraq War. I can carry a grudge. I haven't resumed The Atlantic for the same reason.
But I've since filled my attention budget with more left leaning content. Neoliberalism had it's day. I'm interested in what comes next. Not becoming a curmudgeon yelling at the kids to get off my lawn. So I doubt I'll ever resub to The Economist.
I do miss the both special topic and the regional focus issues.
The only annoying things is the double Christmas issue and the "New Year outlook". They always write the same. The world has never been better and everything becomes better and next year will be better than the last.