The economist is okay if you are conservative liberal with strong bias towards the "west". Russia and China are _wrong_ by default, every _war_ (Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran... all of them failed campaigns by public standards, Afghanistan not failed(?) by US standards - Afghanistan is about global heroin control btw) is justifiable and actively supported, Banks ought to be _protected_ any social-welfare policy (before covid, in the covid era the tune has changed considerably) is brought to us by "populist devilish politicians" while every bank-saving, pro-market scheme which leaves large % of the population jobless is "made-in-heaven".

The economist like reading an old British grandmother supporting financial schemes and policies which failed more time than I can count, again and again.

By the way before 2010 the articles were better argued and these differences were not so blatant. I believe the quality has decreased considerably. Then again, these are polarized times...

There's also the good parts. The obituary, the "Charlemagne" part is often somewhat relevant.

Examples of double-standards are Brexit vs France "yello vests" movement. The British should by all means do another referendum or the politicians should mimic the 2015 Greek PM and revert the result the of the referendum because "people don't know". The French voters should stay put and accept "the result of the democratic procedures" which brought Macron to power. So... Which one is it then? Respect democracy or overturn it? ;-)

When I was a subscriber I was getting informed for various matters all over the world, so if it's the economist vs nothing, I would prefer the economist. If it's the economist vs something else, well... I don't know.