I see what you’re getting at and your position is reasonable, but I think misses the point of the initial comment, viz. The Economist is known for objective reporting (neutrality in bias), in part because they are open about their editorial slant (non-neutrality of opinion).

For example: “Ukraine is winning the economic war. This is a good thing.” - Economist reporting vs. “Ukraine is winning the economic war. This is a bad thing.” - Converse-Economist vs. “Ukraine is losing the economic war.” - Pro-Russian bias

You made an assertion. If you are unable to provide supporting evidence, we can assume that your assertion is incorrect without needing to prove anything.

It might not contribute to the conversation, but I thought your response was worth an upvote.

Advertising for a product isn’t a citation. That article literally just repeats Dyson’s own claims. Do you have anything that actually tests that claim?

You made a claim first, so you should provide your citation first as well.

The accusations date to 2010 and he gave up his citizenship in 2012.

You didn’t read story. The alleged crimes happened while he was still a US citizen.

They do not. For a given power input they produce less airflow at lower velocity than a regular fan. They’re a complete scam.

If true, that would still make it not quite as bad as Twitter.

Do you have citations to support any of your claims?

This is materially incorrect in multiple ways.

1. The Economist’s reporting is widely recognized for its absence of bias.
2. Leaders are not opinion pieces, they are brief overviews, hence why they seem like “truncated versions” of articles.
3. The “snippets of opinion” to which you refer are reporting on public opinion. I thought that was obvious.

This is false. It still has areas in which it could improve, but it is a thousand times better than twitter.