Awesome content, but if you read pay attention closely, you can basically write the story without reading, because you know what the answers will be.
The paper NYT and WSJ are a great way to go. You get clear editorial contrasts and lots of content. Science Times and other feature sections are always a treat.
That's generally my experience, but I appreciate how most articles in the Economist have 1) an attempt to genuinely outline both sides of the argument, and 2) an attempt to clearly -- "clearly" is relative at times -- take a side in the discussion.
Most of the time that side is going to be the free market technocratic solution, hence the parent comment about being able to predict where the article will go, but even then I feel like I have an idea what the argument is and where the sides are.
The Economist is basically the flag-bearer of pro-capitalist policy, so yes their views would largely be supported by the entire US political establishment.
>would largely be supported by the entire US political establishment
Well that's just the thing! We observe Trump attacked from all sides of the establishment - the left, (some of) the right, and the entire government bureaucracy ("the deep state").
There is a rift somewhere in the system, and we're not discussing it...
It's stated to have a liberal slant, so especially on social issues it would disagree with Trump. It's also explicitly said bad things about Trump's demeanor or attitudes.
However, it does praise some actions that Trump and the Republicans have done with regards to covid19. I overall find that it greatly tones down the extreme takes / perspectives I see on Reddit, and finds lots of nuance
The Economist is definitely not liberal. It's intended to be nonpolitical but its conscious opinions lean conservative. Disagreeing with Trump or talking about Trump in a negative manner does not make one liberal, no matter what US political pundit will tell you.
Nonpartisan, yes. Nonpolitical? Absolutely not. The reason for its foundation was (specifically) to campaign against a policy held dear by the government of the day, and (generally) to promote a specific politico-economic worldview, that of free market capitalism with a strong emphasis on cross-border trade. Sometimes this can make their positions appear a little more left-leaning than a classic US libertarian could stomach, such as supporting the existence of the EU, if not every one of its actions; and tending to prefer at least a light touch of regulation on the markets, so long as it keeps the wheels of international commerce turning smoothly. Also, they are at pains to separate their news reporting (usually impeccably balanced and impartial) from their opinion pieces. As an answer to OP's question, I would actually second the recommendation of The Economist as an excellent way to keep abreast of world events while cunningly sidestepping the hysteria and sensationalism of nearly all other media (yes, including most "serious newspapers" these days).
The Economist leans "liberal" in the sense of liberal economics, or UK's Liberal Democrat Party. In the US, this is perhaps better translated as "libertarian."
I remember when Rex Tillerson was appointed to State, and how they wrote a glowing article about how fucking great he was and how he'll improve foreign relations and make international capital work again and bla bla bla.
Four years later he's gone, even allegedly called Trump a "fucking moron" on the way out.
