[billfor]

They are not "quite centric" politically, unless you are a liberal. Contrast the number of times the phrase "far-right" appears with the equivalent (far-left, progressive, radical left, etc..). They go out of their way to use negative adjectives describing right-wing (US definition) people or concepts, but not so much the left. The "Lexington" column is completely devoted to liberal (not classical liberal) ideas, and I would challenge anyone to note a right of center view (US definition) in that column over the last ten years. I've subscribed to the Economist on and off for twenty years and definitely noticed a change in bias when Zany took over.

[adamwk]

The Economist is a British journal, so why would you use US definition of right wing to evaluate their centrality?

[kensai]

Valid comment, but prolly because this is the reality he knows. Which is fair.

[billfor]

We do read the Economist in the US, and Lexington in particular in the US section. I use the US definition of right wing because I'm in the US and didn't want to confuse Europeans that have a different definition of what "right" is when I use it in a sentence. All I was doing is correcting (and providing evidence for) the reference that they are "quite centric". They are not anywhere near the center of issues consistently. If you want more evidence, Allsides also rate it left of center, https://www.allsides.com/news-source/economist-media-bias

I notice it because I've been reading it for 20+ years. In the last 10 years it has taken a notable turn to the left. Whatever your viewpoint, the "tone" and "lean" of the magazine has shifted in the last decade. It's still a good source of information and I do read it every week.