The Economist is a very good illustration of two distinctions:
- "liberal" is not the same as "left", even if both of them have often been aligned against "Toryism"
- "ideological bias" and "intellectual dishonesty" are not the same thing
The liberal pro-market bias of the Economist is something they don't hide, and is fundamental both to their opinion pieces and the subjects they cover. However, they generally haven't surrendered to the temptation to make stuff up or ignore inconvenient facts. They don't really do demonisation of opponents or scapegoats. They are capable of reviewing their own coverage in retrospect (things like predicting the last thirteen of two housing price crashes).
It's possible to read an economist article where you disagree with their angle but still feel that you've learned something and they've made a useful contribution to the discussion. The number of news sources where this is true has shrunk dramatically; the only other one I'd name from US-UK media is the FT. Honorable mention to the Irish Times.
- "liberal" is not the same as "left", even if both of them have often been aligned against "Toryism"
- "ideological bias" and "intellectual dishonesty" are not the same thing
The liberal pro-market bias of the Economist is something they don't hide, and is fundamental both to their opinion pieces and the subjects they cover. However, they generally haven't surrendered to the temptation to make stuff up or ignore inconvenient facts. They don't really do demonisation of opponents or scapegoats. They are capable of reviewing their own coverage in retrospect (things like predicting the last thirteen of two housing price crashes).
It's possible to read an economist article where you disagree with their angle but still feel that you've learned something and they've made a useful contribution to the discussion. The number of news sources where this is true has shrunk dramatically; the only other one I'd name from US-UK media is the FT. Honorable mention to the Irish Times.