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.

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?

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.

Boo rockstar. That game’s mechanics were some of the most fun I ever experienced. It was absolutely crying out for a sequel.