I think this is an unfair generalisation. The Economist has always had free-market leanings, long before the term "neo-liberal" was spawned. Moreover even a cursory glance at their comments feeds (you'll need a strong stomach of course) reveals an equal quantity of complaining about this "leftist organ" and its "socialist liberal agenda" as there is about being a "trade agreement apologist" or "capitalist rag".

It may be the only way to gauge impartiality is when everyone is equally offended.