> That someone can honestly say with a straight face that "the Economist is left-facing" speaks volumes to the sad state of the Overton window.

Or that they are viewing things entirely through the lens of American culture war dimension of politics (where the Economist might fit in the neutral to left-facing description), rather than the usual left-right economic spectrum, where it is agressively center-right.

The Economist is old school liberal: let companies do what they want (US "right-wing"), let people do what they want (US "left-wing"), but unlike US libertarians, also have some regulation and support in place to prevent the worst abuses.

You keep repeating the Economist is rightwing in this thread, but it seems most here disagree with you. I mean, Fox, Breitbart or the NY Post are pretty much rightwing, and the Economist does not even compare, both in tone and in content. What puts them in the right wing camp according to yo?

Growing up in NZ, If you championed free market capitalism and privatisation, you would definitely be considered right wing. That is the Economist's bread and butter.

That NZ's major left wing party was and is still a big proponent of these policies didn't change that.

Today, it could be argued that neoliberalism has moved the overton window, but many, many people still don't buy it.

I'm not sure it does "champion privatisation". I've read some pretty damning reports on bad privatisation, for example about the problems from rail privatisation, as well as on monopolistic practice by big companies. I would say it's rather more nuanced than private good, public bad.

What is "left" and what is "right" is a question of consensus, of course. The Eke is surely considered right-wing in Britain, and likely in most of Europe.