The Economist should be talking about Sincere Deceivers, for sure
In a preachy op-ed, The Economist states "Mr Bush has said that he is running as a war president, which is not surprising given that he has fought two of them in the past four years." I beg to differ: To some of us, it's ONE war.
The Economist, full of editorial pride, insists that the President "has a lot to do to convince the electorate—and The Economist—that the buck should not in fact stop with him". Heaven forbid Mr. Bush convinces the electorate and not The Economist's editors. We might have to call in the UN to mediate.
Their arrogance doesn't stop there. In the same issue of the magazine/newspaper there's not on a word on the Wilson/Palme lies, not a word on what has been found so far, even by the UN, in Iraq regarding weapons -- including two tons of sarin that the Polish troops found in May (to which, of course they'd say that the Butler & Senate inquiries were not about what's been found now, but instead about what was known before the Iraq war), or other details that might prove inconvenient to The Econonmist's editorial board, such as these, from the Senate Intelligence Report:

• Wilson's trip to Africa did not "debunk" the administration position that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger - in fact it strengthened this position
  
• the CTC believed (and still does) that there were definite ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, whereas the NESA is far more skeptical on this count
  
• The report reveals Iraqi plans to bomb Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Prague from 1998-2003
  
• Neither Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed denied the existence of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda (a key point since the 9/11 Commission based one of their conclusions on their testimony)
  
• It appears that Saddam Hussein issued a standing offer of safehaven for bin Laden in 1999
  
• This report specifically undercuts some of the 9/11 Commission's key findings with respect to Iraq and al-Qaeda. It cites post-1999 contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, which the 9/11 commission claims to possess no information on
  
• Also, this demolishes 2 of Richard Clarke's key claims with respect to Iraq: that there was no Iraqi involvement in terrorism post-1993, and that there is no evidence whatsoever of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda. Both of these claims, to put it quite simply, can now be shown to be factually untrue.

I've been a subscriber to The Economist for decades now, and nearly cancelled my subscription. The Husband prefers that I don't, and their reporting (not their editiorials) is still good. All the same, The Economist's editors have a lot to do to convince me that the buck should not in fact stop with them.
As to sincere deceivers, none more so than the press.