Journalism is a narrative about recent history. Treating the facts and opinions as equal parts, is soft propaganda. This is how Fox News started and what it seems The Economist engages in enough, to point it out. You may or may not agree with the messaging, but the admission of leaning into it is not laudable.

If facts are treated as sacred, and opinions clearly labelled as such, then any residual confusion can logically be cleared up with better education in how to think critically. It's certainly a delicate balancing act but I agree with The Economist that it's possible. Fox News does not have the same "reverence for facts" as The Economist. Nor the same estimation of its audience's intelligence. The Economist is well known for, for example, leaving foreign-language quotations untranslated.

I dropped my subscription to The Economist precisely because of its tiresomely doctrinaire approach to economics. But I still consider their journalists to be first-rate and I trust their reporting to be factually correct.