The Economist frequently publishes corrections. I've also seen them note when one of their stakeholders is also linked to the topic of an article.

Given the price differential between subscribing and on-stand, I'd imagine most of their regular readership has paid before ink hits paper.

In many countries you are subject to civil and criminal penalties for slandering or libelling someone.

So no. They wouldn't be around if they were in the business of lying.

"Any other media publication" did not publish an almost identical sensationalist story a few months back, which turned out to be unsubstantiated crap.

Had any website other than bloomberg published this, I might have read past the headline.

Consider that some of these parties you're throwing mud at, based on assumptions, might not be deserving of mud. If news is making one cynical, maybe take a break, and look for parties deserving of flowers, keeping the mud in reserve.