If that were true, it'd be one more reason not to try to give credence to unfalsifiable publications by linking them to experts of various fields, or even editors-who-once-took-a-course-on-T.
But I think it's not true at all. The thought process on most publications like Economist is one most people can follow for its validity, precisely because it's not state-of-the-art mathematics (or even economics). Even though the domain experts can immediately judge its correctness, I think it's important for anyone to be able to at least identify when they're reading something they can't verify as correct, and not take publication X's "word" for it.
> Editors are a thing.
Editors are there to make sure the news piece conforms to certain standards, but that's not the standards of the readers.
> If you already know whether or not the Economist is correct about something, what value are you getting from reading it?
That was nowhere near my point, and I don't see why you base your comment around it. My point is I am (or want to be) able to read a piece and judge it on its own, rather than who wrote it.