Just about anything put out by the Cato Institute. Although I dissagree with their isolationist foreign policy I find their views are strictly rational rather than apparently rational.
I was not aware that Lexington was an opinion column and therefore excluded from a charge of bias.
Would you view the Chalemagne column with equanimity if it constantly tilted to the views of the Christian Democrats? Most of the writers for the Economist are the products of Oxbridge and like the BBC commentators have a gift for the prosaic stilleto between the ribs. In some respects they are like the french elite, distainful of the lumpen proletariat.
In the 1980's they were fierce opponents of the socialist sclerosis which had handicapped the UK since WW II, during both socialist and nominally conservative governments. They have lost that edge in recent years under different editors.
For what it's worth I don't agree with a great deal of what is writtern on this site - believing in a Jefforsonian republic ( That government governs best ...) - but FR does not portray itself as balanced, which the Economist does. Having said that, it's standards are still way above just about anything currently published in the USA with the possible exception of highly specialised journals such as Foreign Affairs or Foreign Policy
The proposed constitution assumes that in future politicians will be honest, diligent and put the public interest first - all the evidence of the last two thousand years notwithstanding. They also appear content to leave the final interpretation up to the European Court a mistake our founding fathers made with the Supreme Court ( See my tag line below)
Although you may be correct, unfortunately, I do not think it fair to compare the publications of a foundation to that of a weekly. The Economist has to earn a profit through advertising. So possibly I should rephrase my question to ask if you can name a more objective advertisement supported publication?