Lol, here's a typical article for the economist sounds like:
Palestine at a "Crossroads" - Abbas' Last Stand.
[begin reciting facts in argumentative format rather than the typical journalist style of opening up with the scene or the action to orient the reader. (of course this is not a daily print, so they do not need to often get the reader up to date on the events themselves.)]
[then cite a few facts (disclaimers) that aren't favorable to cover the argument's weaknesses]
[then say how the story or argument can't truly predict what will happen]
[wait a week or so for the events to roll out and then write another article about how write the previous article was in its facts, even if the main point of the article did not come to fruition.]
At this point, you as a reader begin to realize that many of the stories are just fact laden editorials. And that the facts sound better in the Economist, because of their argumentative style. Marshalling facts to make a point for the reader after all, is much easier than letting the reader form their own hypothesis and researching/testing it in later news updates.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading the economist as well. However, I often run into people who see it as the end, all be all of thoughtful discussion on an issue. Some people think economists are more often right than journalists. I just think newspapers and magazines do not prefer the economists' format in America for most journalists. (of course there are magazines like the New Yorker or Atlantic Monthly in the U.S. that do not write in a typical journalist style)
Bottom Line: Hot Deal for the Mag. Not so hot, if you're only looking for well informed and factual argument. You can find that for much cheaper. It only costs a few thoughts.