I'll admit to being a subscriber. You get what you pay for - generally high quality reporting, not particularly biased to anything other than "backed up by evidence". Proper journalism and decent-sized articles, not limited to a few column inches. Not perfect, but pretty damn good.
The Economist's agenda is to be well-informed, and not beholden to an owner's whims (see: swivel-eyed non-domiciled inherited multi-millionaires who want to avoid any pan-EU tax agreements, and who rather like the thought of politicians desperate for their support come the General Election).
So: Pro NATO, pro-US-anti-Trump, advised against Brexit on economic grounds. The left will call it the organ of capitalist lackeys, the right will call it a bunch of snowflakes who can't see that Brexit will be a success, honest, because we say so.
... "If I cannot disprove the analysis, I will insult the offending publication and anyone who dares read such contrary opinions"
Quite right. We should all believe in blind assertions from politicians, without the benefit of such troublesome things as "facts".
For instance, the Mexicans are about to pay for a wall (the best wall ever) and any claims that the Russians have been interfering in US elections (or that the Inauguration was poorly attended compared to previous years) is of course fake news.