[oostevo]

The Economist has an established editorial slant and actively practices advocacy journalism.

You're looking for The Christian Science Monitor. Their whole reason for being is avoiding sensationalist reporting (biased reporting, I'd argue, is impossible to avoid completely). They go so far as to not use any of the wire services, so that biases don't creep in there, and use their own on-the-ground reporters instead.

What's tragic is that news sources like that are being plowed under along with the Fox Newses of the world with everyone's decision that "eh, blogs are just as good."

(edit: Well that's embarrassing. Apparently HTML markup doesn't work here.)

[onewland]

While I agree that The Economist has an editorial slant, it is at least informative enough that you can form your own independent opinion from their reporting. (At the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign they seemed to be stumping hard for McCain; they were my main source of news and I still wasn't swayed away from Obama.)

As far as sensationalism and lack of depth, I'm not sure they can really be faulted.