I don't mind them having an opinion. I do mind them (for example) stating that individuals at a particular political conference "look like they had been bullied as children, or else should have been bullied".

How do you rank the Economist, WSJ, Bloomberg, and FT? I view them as the big 4 English-language "serious investor publications" -- curious if you can think of others. (Generally I view investor publications as more incentivized towards accuracy. Investors will pay for information which allows them to make accurate predictions about asset prices. That's a better feedback loop for truth than most publications get. Lots of real-world events are reflected in asset prices.)

They are way more sloppy when the topic is for example poverty, inequality, etc. Economist has also problems with these kind of topics, but way less. I know people who prefer WSJ/Bloomberg/FT. All of them are from wealthy families, with zero clue about average people, and some of them even consider themselves poor, when they are rich as fuck. That hypocrisy is better fitted for those. I'm quite annoyed by that view. I'm even annoyed by Economist's elitism. The Economist has these topics because it's beneficial for the elite to solve these, the others simply ignore this fact.

The snark is part of the vibe. The world is full of people still working through their inferiority/superiority complex. Many of them convene in the Halls of Power. The Economist reminds them all that they are still mortal.