Do you care to name a more objective publication? Moreover, I was talking about the Economist as a whole and not the Lexington opinion piece. An opinion piece is by its very definition subjective. I would challenge you to back up your statement with articles that reflect both the Economist of the 80s and it softer side.
Freeperland is also by definition not particularly objective. If you havent noticed, we tend to look at things from a distance slightly more than a bit right of center.
I find that the economist usually gives both perspectives and never veers to far off in either direction. A publication that is perceived by Freepers as being only slightly left of center may very well be in the middle.
Just about anything put out by the Cato Institute. Although I dissagree with their isolationist foreign policy I find their views are strictly rational rather than apparently rational.
I was not aware that Lexington was an opinion column and therefore excluded from a charge of bias.
Would you view the Chalemagne column with equanimity if it constantly tilted to the views of the Christian Democrats? Most of the writers for the Economist are the products of Oxbridge and like the BBC commentators have a gift for the prosaic stilleto between the ribs. In some respects they are like the french elite, distainful of the lumpen proletariat.
In the 1980's they were fierce opponents of the socialist sclerosis which had handicapped the UK since WW II, during both socialist and nominally conservative governments. They have lost that edge in recent years under different editors.
For what it's worth I don't agree with a great deal of what is writtern on this site - believing in a Jefforsonian republic ( That government governs best ...) - but FR does not portray itself as balanced, which the Economist does. Having said that, it's standards are still way above just about anything currently published in the USA with the possible exception of highly specialised journals such as Foreign Affairs or Foreign Policy