Political bias of the Economist

I have been praising the coverage of the Economist for years.  Its coverage of the Middle East has lately been deteriorating and showing signs of more political bias.  After the assassination of Hariri in Lebanon in 2005, the Economist was a rare example in the Western press (along with Shadid at the Post and Stack at LA Times) which did not show bias to either side in Lebanon.  Look at this totally erroneous passage:  "Hassan Nasrallah, the charismatic leader of Hizbullah, Lebanon’s Shia party-cum-militia, provoked an angry backlash by staging a giant rally to protest against the film. Critics not only charged him with manipulating the incident to ingratiate himself with Sunni Muslims, among whom Mr Nasrallah’s star has waned with the region-wide rise of sectarian animosity. They called him a hypocrite for condemning America as a shielder of blasphemers while ignoring the offences to God committed by his ally, Syria’s regime."  What anger and what backlash?  It only resulted the usual typical responses from none other than his opponents in March 14 (and in the media of House of Saud which sponsors the former).  I mean, Lebanon is a deeply divided society and every step by anyone results in anger on the other side, and vice versa.