As someone who reads The Economist occasionally, you are mistaken about this diversity of opinions idea, but I think I understand why you are mistaken.

The Economist is very straightforwardly a British/European liberal (not in the American sense of "liberal") publication that is economically and socially liberal and strongly internationalist in its outlook.

It will almost always recommend lower tax burdens, reduced business regulation, reduced trade barriers and membership of the EU, UN and NATO, privatisation of nationalised industries, and reduced moral policing by the state. However, it will admit, reflecting a British political consensus, that government intervention and regulation is invaluable in areas such as health, natural monopolies such as energy and transport, moderate levels of income redistribution through the tax system, social safety nets in the event of economic downturns or disability, or with national or international threats such as climate change were government coordination is indispensable. Sometimes they will admit that the power of the state is the only way to get things done, and so they aren't strictly dogmatic about their pro-market credentials, but if there is a viable path for leaving something alone they will advocate for it.

If you are an American reader this combination of issues may seem to fall across a lot of political boundaries, and so its novelty makes it seem diverse. In fact, this combination is a fairly straightforward centre and centre-right view of policy in the UK and much of Europe.

Edit: Some people seem to be suggesting The Economist is Libertarian. You are mistaken - it is liberal.