[dredmorbius]

True.

And the newspaper's quite refreshingly and frankly open about that fact:

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....

<https://www.economist.com/unknown/1843/08/05/prospectus>

(I'm not claiming support or opposition of the viewpoint. Only that the Economist has a view and explicitly promotes it, quite openly.)

[world_peace42]

That’s great, and I’m a sea otter because it is so written. Send me a link to the portfolio of everyone who has influence over what gets written and I’ll show you how they decide what to publish.

[dredmorbius]

I'm sorry, but are you agreeing with me that the Economist has a clearly articulated editorial bias or not?

Because quite plainly, they do.

And I would expect that to be exercised through editorial control and directives.

If you think the Economist does NOT have an editorial bias, or a different editorial bias, what is your basis for claiming so, and in the latter case, what is that bias?

You seem to be putting "disagree with dredmorbius" ahead of "express myself clearly". Try the latter.

[world_peace42]

I’m a bit speechless at this point. I’ve written about 5 posts so far stating that they have a bias, the actual one definitely not clearly articulated, including several you’ve responded to. No offense, I think what I’ve written is clear, but that you may be confused.