The Rothschilds have had a substantial stake in the Economist for 70 years, including prior to the time when Pearson was a shareholder. Pearson did not control the board, had only 6 of the 13 board seats, and never had majority control of the company. It's unclear what is meant by "corporate owners;" Pearson is a publicly traded corporation.

I'm also a long-time subscriber and do not understand the "shift" you are referring to. The Economist has been pro-free-trade, generally against heavy regulation, and a magazine that consistently takes small-l liberal positions for a very long time. That stance means that sometimes they are right - deregulation has been good in many areas - but sometimes they get it wrong, when, for example, free trade may have adverse effects.

Sometimes they take positions that are bad - they argued for the second Iraq war - but they are pretty up front about their biases, and generally don't represent their biases as purely objective facts, as many traditional newspapers do. Their writing is clear and concise and is not meant to be consumed uncritically. The magazine is still unparalleled for what it offers.

Pearson had a 50% stake, most of which was sold to the Agnellis. So now, the Agnellis and the Rotschilds are the largest (and, together, controlling) shareholders.

Board members like Lady de Rothschild and Eric "you have no privacy" Schmidt publicly supported/donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign. The Rotschilds were invited by the Clintons to spend their honeymoon at the White House. The rest of the board reads like the attendees at the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations. The very definition of elitism, and collusion with the governments (Schmidt, Alex Karp, who is also on the board, there are also Sirs and Baronesses). "Free trade" - yes, reserved for the multinationals, Most definitely not mom-and-pop, small/medium business oriented anymore (which they used to be, before the sale).

The fact that they (probably still) have superbly written articles should not disguise the shift in their political stance.

I wouldn't argue with that one, either. But it's also not "hard left" :)

The word - if we're willing to shed many of the more populist overtones around it - is probably "neoliberalism". Consistently siding with money & corporations, with a democratic bent. (But not too much!)

Since 2016, it's more and more living on its reputation and not coming quite to terms with the changes in the world. It is still firmly rooted in facts - can't really provide economic guidance when you deny realities - but it seems somewhat unable to engage with the rise of populism and nationalism in an economically intertwined world.

Not unlike centrism :)

Sharp left, not hard left :) Think of it like a sharp taste, as in "distinct", "memorable"

It's not distinctly or memorably left, either. It really, really isn't. It's milquetoast centrist with a helping of globalism, and a good chunk of neoliberalism.

You won't see it calling to defund the police, or that we should tax the bejeezus out of billionaires. And these are moderately left, not memorably left.