Not that I'd trust you as a judge of political neutrality (which does not exist--the closest you can get to it is political ignorance, which helps nobody), but you have said something quite different in this post than you did in the post to which I responded. You suggested in the first that the very fact that it is a business or financial paper demonstrated political neutrality--which is completely ridiculous. And then you practically all but said that anybody who does not read it should not be in office.
I agree that the economy does not give a shit about the political divide. That doesn't mean any given economist, newspaper editor, or business journalist doesn't.
As an economical newspaper, it deals with economy first and the rest goes if it fits.
Newspaper as a business is here to give people news and stuffs they want to read.
If I want to know wtf happens in the energy market, I don't give a shit that
MLP doesn't want to vote, I want to know wtf happens between EDF, Veolia and co.
And sure as hell if the news is about theses companies I shouldn't expect to read the word Sarkozy or Parti Socialiste if the news is not about a link between the 2.
Alas with all the aforementioned newspaper, you can't get the fucking news without it being polluted by some shitty activism from a worthless journalist who knows nothing on the matter.
That doesn't happen on LaTribune most of the time and for that I'm ever so glad.
And yes if you're running for office to become the next president, you'll have to deal with the economy and the health of the companies in the country so it's not good, nay it's unacceptable that the runner doesn't his front from his back on the matter.
With the shitty job they've done in the last 30 years, I don't think we need to indulge ourselves into thinking that's less important than whether or not people are eating halal or another shitty subject.