Could be, there's a reason for that. With some things, the two sides do not really merit the same consideration. Slavery, for instance is an easy one, not something where you need 'fair and balanced' coverage of 'both sides of the issue'. Not comparing Trump to slavery, mind you, but from their editorial stance, he combines a number of worryingly illiberal qualities that are antithetical to their position. They were (and are) the same way about Silvio Berlusconi, despite not having a lot in common with some of his past left-wing opposition.
The Economist certainly have done this, they used to do one every few months. It's strange, I'd say charter schools were a very "neoliberal" policy.
It's hard to call them "news", but they do important research and expose
the economist is pro imf/world bank.
that is less pro globalisation and more pro * poorer nations for the Western profit incentive.
which isnt quite an equivalence.