> I felt like they were bursting at the seams to criticize Trump

Could be, there's a reason for that. With some things, the two sides do not really merit the same consideration. Slavery, for instance is an easy one, not something where you need 'fair and balanced' coverage of 'both sides of the issue'. Not comparing Trump to slavery, mind you, but from their editorial stance, he combines a number of worryingly illiberal qualities that are antithetical to their position. They were (and are) the same way about Silvio Berlusconi, despite not having a lot in common with some of his past left-wing opposition.

Of course. I just would prefer a little more opposition to the liberal imperialism at times. It would be great to have a journal that's somehow even more sophisticated than the Economist, taking into different viewpoints and understandings of the world. Just as a quick example, I don't see much in the way of opposition to war, or the positive side of something like charter schools. Note that these are things I'm just interested in reading contrasting viewpoints about. I am fortunate enough though that I can find books to fill these voids.

> positive side of something like charter schools

The Economist certainly have done this, they used to do one every few months. It's strange, I'd say charter schools were a very "neoliberal" policy.

Yeah these were just examples. Might not have been good ones.

propublica.org

It's hard to call them "news", but they do important research and expose

Better to say that The Economist is pro-globalism, right or left.

Yeah maybe that's more accurate, depending on what you mean by globalism.

Isofar as "left" and "right" have meaning, globalism is right, not left. A "left" globalism would be an international workers/labor movement, which Economist does not support.

guess that depends on your definition of globalism.

the economist is pro imf/world bank.

that is less pro globalisation and more pro * poorer nations for the Western profit incentive.

which isnt quite an equivalence.

The alleged positives of Brexit have the problem of being incoherent: because there's no fixed policy manifesto for it, people keep citing conflicting advantages. Such as ending agricultural subsidies - while telling the farmers that they're not going to lose out.