I respect the writing in the Economist. It's kept to a high standard and they put their cases well with evidence as the article here highlights. Even the times

I respect the writing in the Economist. It's kept to a high standard and they put their cases well with evidence as the article here highlights. Even the times I don't agree with their position, I still respect it. I wonder how much it helps that their writers are anonymous and therefore less likely to go on personal flights of fancy or building an argumentative approach. It is perhaps puts the individual writer on the backfoot but makes the quality of the publication higher. Personally I think other sources would do well to consider this - frankly I would rather be a fan of an idea than a writer: the former seems reasonable the latter likely to vere into pointless worship. Plus it's much easier to switch to new ideas if they're superceded by better ones in due course.