The Economist wears its prejudice on its sleeve and acknowledges them. It was literally founded as a propaganda organ for the liberals in England. In oppositi

The Economist wears its prejudice on its sleeve and acknowledges them. It was literally founded as a propaganda organ for the liberals in England. In opposition to the "Corn Laws" It is also "where the Queen goes, go we". So if England (not Britain, England) declares war they are in, boots and all. They cheer lead the Iraqi debacle then years later talked of "those mistaken supporteds of the Iraqi invasion including this magazine". It is what I like about them. Most media does not admit it bias, the Economist admits it every day. "FROM A CYNICAL European perspective, Viktor Orban’s election triumphs are like covid-19 wave" it says. Because it has always been anti Orban. Always called on the Hungarian voters to rejected him. I disagree with many of their priors (I find the emphasis on individual rights as opposed to collective rights unbalanced. Collective rights exist an often conflict with individual rights and I put the balance in a different place) But I have huge respect for the honesty. You can label it "propaganda". It is not incorrect. But it is unsubtle and very honest. Compare that to Fox News or the Guardian both of which do not recognise that their views are prejudice at all.