I've caught errors about my field (engineering, not software) in other publications, even Popular Science, but the handful of Economist articles on the subject have been spot-on correct on details/nuances. I remember an old hiring ad of theirs. They were looking for "science writers," and they emphasized "scientists who can write, not the other way around."

I have to agree. I've been a weekly reader for over 5 years now and I always find their analyses of my own country (Canada) more eloquent and poignant than our own media. I do recommend carefully choosing which articles to take in without a grain or tablespoon of salt. They have excellent practices but they still have an agenda and a world-view through which they frame things. Sometimes I think I'm being smart and reading between the lines but as the thread's target article aptly points out: I'm so swamped with information I never really go down the rabbit hole of proving/disproving my thoughts on articles.

I see the paper as a friend who I find annoying in a few ways but that I nevertheless appreciate and generally trust.

That’s funny because the first time I saw someone make the OPs comment it was in reference to the Economist. I want to say there was even a catchy term for it but I’m struggling to find it

Edit- It was Gell Mann amnesia as described in a comment further down

Likewise for Ars Technica. They're a specialized source covering technical topics, and they're almost always quite good at it.