This is why I enjoyed reading The Economist. I might not have agreed with their editorial slant, but I loved how they didn't care much for human interest stories (or at least marginalised them) and did report on things slowly getting better all around the world.
(Stopped reading not because I was discontent, rather because of a lack of time.)
The Economist is also one of the most strongly opinionated magazines currently being published. Almost every article says, quite loudly, what they think governments should be doing with whatever problem they're describing. Whereas the NY Times, for example, is much more understated, and will, if they offer a solution (or opinion) at all, outline the various pros/cons and leave the reader to infer what they really think.
While I like The Economist a lot, my preferred source of reporting and analysis on news, culture and politics is The New York Review of Books. Their stable of superb, intellectual writers tackle all sorts of things (books, ironically, being pretty far down on the list) in a highly readable way. The Economist can get a little dry and monotonous after a while.
LRB is great, too. I prefer NYRB, though I can't pinpoint anything specific; it's just that in any given issue, LRB tends to have a higher ratio of articles that I find too dry and academic.
As you probably know, LRB was originally created by NYRB (it was initially published as a supplement), so they have a shared history and kinship. And of course, there are a ton of writers who are published in both, such as Tim Parks, Neal Ascherson, Tony Judt (RIP!) and Jonatham Lethem.
The only reason I don't read both faithfully is that there's just not enough time in the world.
(Stopped reading not because I was discontent, rather because of a lack of time.)