The Economist does in fact have a marked and explicit editorial mission to promote free trade principles, set forth in their Prospectus[1], specifically, that "ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day—political events—and parliamentary discussions; and particularly to all such as relate immediately to revenue, commerce, and agriculture; or otherwise affect the material interests of the country", and "POPULAR MOVEMENTS: A report and account of all popular movements throughout the country in favour of Free Trade."

Unlike some organisations (e.g., NewsCorp), these biases are at least explicitly stated, if not widely known.

While I generally respect it, I find its skew at times quite painful to swallow. At least the writing is generally well executed.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Notes:

1. http://www.economist.com/node/1873493

That's the most recent? Just in July there were supposedly part of a giant plan with the MPAA to slander Google to manipulate stock prices. It's amazing anyone takes NewsCorp seriously.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/72607/20150731/mpaa-secret...

Don't forget "The Truth".

no it isn't, unless you assume the person you reply to already knows about the topic and is defending it.

But if you consider the question as "I don't know what is wrong with news corp" than it's the best question you can ask.

Well Glenn Beck was as close as you could get to Jar Jar binks ...