As the GP said, especially if you know the topic well, Economist fails to impress you with the sometimes "shaky" facts they embed to make a point. What I don't like at Economist the most is the divine-like inner voice they are using to report on a totally controversial area in a totally foreign topic and choose a side as if it's very easy to choose sides. For example, you're a banker reader in London, and they give you bundled, consumption-ready opinion about why Mr X in LaLaLand is a better match for governing the fiscal politics and not Ms Y.

It's as if they are ruling the world rather than doing journalism.

My point is that I am intentionally paying for bundled, consumption-ready opinions about the world. I have other news sources for more detailed "just the facts" coverage of places and subjects I care about, but nobody has enough time to keep up with the entire world at that level. The Economist gives me a nice overview of world events from a well-defined, consistent, relatively moderate viewpoint, and often covers topics that other "general interest" news sources don't.

I completely understand that not everyone agrees with their views or likes this style of journalism, I just disagree that there's any "trick" or false advertising going on.