If enough noise is generated, the single truth can be drowned out, but not for long.
The Economist is all about profit. It is itself just a form of advertisement, for the way of life of profit driven capitalism, which depends entirely upon extracted energy for its existence.
All advertisements tell only part of a story, only the parts they want you to know,
They told you fusion is star power, but they didn't tell you it is impossible other than in a star.
They told you they used it to generate power but they didn't tell you they created less energy than was taken from Earth to make the demonstration, thus the overall outcome of the experiment, fueled at source by energy extracted from Earth, was one of destruction, not creation. Thus it was just more mathematically negative energy put to use.
The purpose of that advertisement is to raise yet more capital from investors, who lost sight of the fact that advertisements and executive summaries are only part truths, long ago.
We only need to understand that energy has a mathematical sign depending on where it comes from, and what the outcome of using it from each source is.
Creation, if it is from the sun, thus something adding to all things created by nature on Earth from the same mathematically positive source.
Destruction, if it is from Earth, undoing what nature created, thus subtracting from Earth, and thus mathematically negative.
The economist doesn't, and won't talk about that.
It won't point out that work is required per Joule of negative energy, whilst no work is required per Joule of positive energy.
It takes work to destroy what nature created, whilst nature creates effortlessly, using positive energy.
So money issued as promises to do work can't monetise positive Joules of enetgy.
Only money issued for free can represent or enummerate Joules received for free, with no need for work per Joule.
The economist won't tell you that either, because money issued for free removes the point of capital, the ability to tie up large amounts of effectively stored energy so as to supply energy only to those it deems contribute to its selfish cause.
The economist never talked about the positives we saw when massive stimulus was issued during covid, things we would previously have dismissed as impossible miracles, if we hadn't seen with our own eyes, including oil prices going negative, and the only spike of environmental recovery seen ever, when some destructive processes peviously thought to be irreversible, reversed, like coral, and fish stocks, both showed an instant spike of recovery, amongst other things.
The economist is telling you everything except this, which actually is the real physical war, between mathematically negative and positive energy.
Positive energy is winning, because that is the only one actually sustainable.
The economist will never tell you that, not even after the war ends with the issue of endless stimulus representing endlesd Joules of positive energy being put to use.
The economist will never even tell you that the real physical driver of the inflation we are seeing is the very same energy war between negative and positive energy we are putting to use.
Money is coming to represent nothing, as negative energy use scales down, and positive energy use scales upwards.
That won't change until money is issued for free, representing the Joules of positive enetgy actually being put to use.
The economist will never tell you any of that.