Forbes, in the days of Malcomb Forbes, Sr., wasn't. He was hated for it, and he didn't care. He was sued, and his attitude was "I'm a billionare, go ahead".

As a onetime subscriber in the 80s I strongly disagree (and I didn’t renew for that reason). I felt the articles were typically not hard hitting and when they were critical of someone it was either because they simply didn’t like that person or, more commonly, it felt fake, like the WWE fake wrestler feuds or “reality tv”.

At least that was my impression as a callow youth in my 20s trying to get a couple of startups off the ground.

Also the Forbes family empire was admitted to be not especially large as they themselves described it, though believed to be >$100M

The Economist manages to escape this because they don't do any journalism or interviews. They provide opinionated commentary on international affairs, peppered with quotes from reports and think tank policy people. And as a result, their analyses are often limited, and can mostly be summarized as "liberalizing the markets would have solved this".

Are you referring to the obituary?

No, I think the obituaries are pretty reasonable and aren’t always about nice people.

The business section often has a profile (complete with profile picture) of some worthy that always seems to be pretty positive.