The Economist has always been upfront about their bias in coverage and that has helped them all along. They were established to challenge the Corn Laws in the U

The Economist has always been upfront about their bias in coverage and that has helped them all along. They were established to challenge the Corn Laws in the United Kingdom. https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2007/01/29/the-economist-and-the-corn-laws https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2007/01/29/the-econo... Their coverage of countries at odds to the US elite/national security state ranges from being slanted to suspect word choice to falsehood by omissions to complete lies. They are open about being a mouthpiece and an advocate and not impartial. Among the 100s (since 1843) of false coverage of countries on the receiving end of Anglo Saxon imperial aggression and genocide (English-speaking countries etc) look at their fake coverage of the coup in Chile and more recently the one in Bolivia. With non-white and non-European countries like Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Vietnam etc they openly advocate their destruction. (worth looking into their archives for those who want to study manufactured consent) This helps serve the policy objectives of lowering non-white populations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement