Do you think TE will write an article focused on crazy things said by leaders of the EU? Never in a million years. They will happily devote large amounts of coverage to statements by politicians they disagree with, however.
I also think "crazy things said by leaders of the EU" is an odd thing to ask for, as it is basically asking them to import your bias as to what's "crazy". I certainly see them printing things from EU leaders that I'd call crazy, if that helps. I also wouldn't call them deferential toward anybody; they're on average quite skeptical of politicians' claims.
I note that you didn't answer my question. Maybe you could? And let me ask another: you only respond here on a relatively small set of stories. Is that because you are biased? Or just because you have a viewpoint?
The idea that there's no difference is poisonous to dialog and, ultimately, democracy. If all statements due to differences in viewpoint can be invalidated as biased, then there's no reason to talk to or learn from people with different viewpoints. All verbal interaction in that view becomes rhetorical combat.
If, on the other hand, we all come from different viewpoints but can overcome (or at least usefully manage) our biases, then dialog is how we work out a common understanding.
For example, as a youth I had no interest in team sports. American culture, though, crams team sports down your throats. It's just assumed that you'll be a partisan for some team, and you're treated as weird/defective if you don't. This was irritating to me, and eventually I developed a deep bias against all of it.
Older, and having lived for years among nerds, I still maintain my viewpoint: I have no interest in team sports. I still agree with this:
But because nobody's been a dick to me about this for years, and because I've become friends with people who do love sports, I've mostly lost my bias. I no longer bristle when the topic comes up. I can give a reasonable accounting of why sports fans love sports, and I can give a balanced list of the social costs and benefits. I still have a mild bias against the topic, but can recognize and override it.
The next-biggest use for me is evaluating other people as sources. I'm more likely to trust somebody if they display awareness of their biases, and especially if they're able to say nuanced things that at times cut against those biases. Because if they aren't wrestling with their own biases, they've outsourced the job to me.
Is that helpful? If not, try asking some sort of question, because you've left me just guessing at your objections here.
The reason they have different connotations is because twisting the facts is considered bad and having an opinion is not.
But as you say, that doesn't mean you have to twist the facts.
The TE has, I think, become worse under the new editor. It used to be better. A simple example of what I'm talking about is this:
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21708680-smooth-brexit...
The article argues that Britain is being "boorish" towards the EU and doesn't understand its neighbours. It quotes Hollande:
in recent days François Hollande, Jean-Claude Juncker and Angela Merkel have all expressed concern at the noises wafting across the sea. “There must be a price,” the French president told a European gathering in Paris on October 6th.
But they are engaged in extremely selective quoting. The full Hollande quote is "There must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price" which makes the EU sound significantly worse: what kind of supposed allies state flat out that they must threaten countries that leave? It makes the EU sound like some sort of mafia. Other news outlets reported the full quote but The Economist did not. They chose to slice out the worst sounding parts entirely in order to push their article's viewpoint: UK bad, Europe good.
I wouldn't trust a single thing I read in the modern TE about the EU, immigration or Russia. On topics the editor cares about they're just a more intellectual sounding version of Fox News.