I would say that it contains chiefly a political part and a cultural part. Some of the pieces in the political part can be apparently well done, informative and interesting, while some others are determined in just blurting out partisan views - arguments not included.
Incidentally: such "polarized literature" seems abundant in today's "globalized" world (where, owing to "strong differences", the sieve of acceptability can have very large gaps). It is also occasionally found here in posts on HN (one of the latest instances just a few browsed pages ago): the occasional post that just states "A is B" with no justification, no foundation for the statement, without realizing that were we interested in personal opinions there are ten billion sources available. And if we had to check them, unranked in filing, an image like Borges' La Biblioteca de Babel could appear: any opinion could be found in some point of the library.
Yes, I have (now) noticed a few contributors (some very prolific) in the Fair Observer are substantially propaganda writers.
But the cultural part, https://www.fairobserver.com/category/culture/ , seems to more consistently contain quality material, with some articles potentially especially interesting. In this area, I have probably seen more bias on some mainstream news outlets.
I think that revolution that is showing valid for journalism today includes this one magazine: the model of The Economist, of having a strong prestigious and selective editorial board (hence its traditional anonymity of the contributors), is now the exception, so you do not read the Magazine but the Journalist. The Magazine will today often publish articles from just anyone; the Reader has today the burden to select the Journalists and follow them.
--
I will write you in a few hours for the repost, thank you.