Well that gets to the heart of it, doesn't it. Is it viewpoint or is it bias, and is there a difference. The TE has, I think, become worse under the new editor

Well that gets to the heart of it, doesn't it. Is it viewpoint or is it bias, and is there a difference. The TE has, I think, become worse under the new editor. It used to be better. A simple example of what I'm talking about is this: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21708680-smooth-brexit-britain-must-drop-boorish-language-and-try-understand-its http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21708680-smooth-brexit... The article argues that Britain is being "boorish" towards the EU and doesn't understand its neighbours. It quotes Hollande: in recent days François Hollande, Jean-Claude Juncker and Angela Merkel have all expressed concern at the noises wafting across the sea. “There must be a price,” the French president told a European gathering in Paris on October 6th. But they are engaged in extremely selective quoting. The full Hollande quote is "There must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price" which makes the EU sound significantly worse: what kind of supposed allies state flat out that they must threaten countries that leave? It makes the EU sound like some sort of mafia. Other news outlets reported the full quote but The Economist did not. They chose to slice out the worst sounding parts entirely in order to push their article's viewpoint: UK bad, Europe good. I wouldn't trust a single thing I read in the modern TE about the EU, immigration or Russia. On topics the editor cares about they're just a more intellectual sounding version of Fox News.