3 ms·

Back in late August when I started my new job, my first purchase with my first paycheck was to get a subscription to Le Devoir, Montreal's independent newspaper

Back in late August when I started my new job, my first purchase with my first paycheck was to get a subscription to Le Devoir, Montreal's independent newspaper. It's amazing how much more informed I feel now: because the content only changes every 24 hours, I have the opportunity to get to the less sexy stories, stories that would be buried on a fast moving website because they don't generate clicks, but which still deal with important local issues. I highly encourage people to research their local newspapers and support one: you get so much out of something that costs the equivalent of a couple Starbucks coffee pet month.

ochoseis 10y ago
The economist is another good option. They have decent digital versions, including a daily edition that's just enough news for me.
- thebooktocome 10y ago
  The Economist carries just as much propaganda as any other political magazine. They're better at hiding it, perhaps.
  - supergarfield 10y ago
    Your definition of propaganda probably is a little to inclusive. In my experience, the Economist very rarely gets the facts wrong (including by omission of major elements). The "letters to the editor" at the beginning of every issue are also almost always critical of previous issues of the magazine, and they don't have a problem with publishing them. What the Economist constantly does is give its opinion on the facts, and that opinion usually sums up to how good free-trade and libertarian policies are. I definitely wouldn't count that as propaganda. You could, but then any newspaper with opinion pieces would be propaganda, which is not what is normally meant by "propaganda".
    - ramblerman 10y ago
      Idd that's called bias, and it would be naive to assume any article ever written doesn't contain some.
  - sxg 10y ago
    What publication would you recommend instead if I'm looking for relatively unbiased, fact-based news?
    - colmvp 10y ago
      I honestly think it's impossible to find truly unbiased news sources. That being said, at least most trusted biased sources still root their information in facts and have journalistic integrity. I'm not going to throw out NYT, WP, NPR, Vox, WSJ, National Review, etc. just because they lean in particular directions. If anything, I'd rather have news sources that are widely known to lean a certain side, because then I know their potential bias beforehand, which I can balance it out by reading articles from opposing publications.
      - j_s 10y ago
        Maybe Al Jazeera
        _nedR 10y ago
        The thing i like about Al Jazeera, is if 20 people die in the west and 50 people die in say Sierra Leone, almost all major media outlets (including international ones) will ignore Sierra Leone and plaster the western incident all over the front page. Al Jazeera at least tries to give some fair coverage to what happened in Sierra Leone and give it a spot on the front page (even if nobody clicks it).
  - ohthehugemanate 10y ago
    that's an interesting definition of propaganda. It's certainly not an unbiased publication, it's an opinion paper. From their "about us" page: > The same page describes the Economist as “a Friday viewspaper, where the readers, with higher than average incomes, better than average minds but with less than average time, can test their opinions against ours. We try to tell the world about the world, to persuade the expert and reach the amateur, with an injection of opinion and argument.” From the same page: > "What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage." So you are certainly not going to get "unbiased news reporting". It's a "viewspaper" that takes declared, informed editorial stances. You will get extremely well thought out and researched opinions and analysis. "Propaganda" is a word usually reserved for intentionally contorting facts to favor a specific political entity. One can have an opinion without spouting propaganda. That's more the MSNBCs, Pravdas, and Fox Newses of the world. If you've ever read an economist article, the difference is obvious.
- igivanov 10y ago
  I don't know if anyone should trust such a Russophobic outlet. https://medium.com/@dominicbasulto/russophobia-and-the-dark-art-of-making-an-anti-russian-magazine-cover-94b11e32d53f#.bvivycdkx https://medium.com/@dominicbasulto/russophobia-and-the-dark-...
  - therealpeal 10y ago
    "Russophobic" people are afraid of countries that invade and occupy other countries (bonus points if it's a dictatorship). This is not irrational.
sebtoast 10y ago
Le Devoir has a reputation of having a left bias doesn't it? I like the newspaper and I would like to subscribe, I'm just saying I often heard some bias complaints. It also has a cool founding history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Devoir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Devoir
- gnuvince 10y ago
  You'll see the left bias in the editorial pieces, but in news stories the writing is as neutral as I've seen. In Montreal, the alternatives are the Journal de Montréal (too much gossip, not enough hard information), La Presse (very good, liberal bias), The Gazette (liberal bias). Another important reason that pushed me toward Le Devoir: it's the only paper (not just in Canada, but everywhere I've looked) that has a PDF version; you get facsimile of the paper edition, which is very nice to read with something like zathura.

ochoseis 10y ago

The economist is another good option. They have decent digital versions, including a daily edition that's just enough news for me.

thebooktocome 10y ago
The Economist carries just as much propaganda as any other political magazine. They're better at hiding it, perhaps.
- supergarfield 10y ago
  Your definition of propaganda probably is a little to inclusive. In my experience, the Economist very rarely gets the facts wrong (including by omission of major elements). The "letters to the editor" at the beginning of every issue are also almost always critical of previous issues of the magazine, and they don't have a problem with publishing them. What the Economist constantly does is give its opinion on the facts, and that opinion usually sums up to how good free-trade and libertarian policies are. I definitely wouldn't count that as propaganda. You could, but then any newspaper with opinion pieces would be propaganda, which is not what is normally meant by "propaganda".
  - ramblerman 10y ago
    Idd that's called bias, and it would be naive to assume any article ever written doesn't contain some.
- sxg 10y ago
  What publication would you recommend instead if I'm looking for relatively unbiased, fact-based news?
  - colmvp 10y ago
    I honestly think it's impossible to find truly unbiased news sources. That being said, at least most trusted biased sources still root their information in facts and have journalistic integrity. I'm not going to throw out NYT, WP, NPR, Vox, WSJ, National Review, etc. just because they lean in particular directions. If anything, I'd rather have news sources that are widely known to lean a certain side, because then I know their potential bias beforehand, which I can balance it out by reading articles from opposing publications.
    - j_s 10y ago
      Maybe Al Jazeera
      - _nedR 10y ago
        The thing i like about Al Jazeera, is if 20 people die in the west and 50 people die in say Sierra Leone, almost all major media outlets (including international ones) will ignore Sierra Leone and plaster the western incident all over the front page. Al Jazeera at least tries to give some fair coverage to what happened in Sierra Leone and give it a spot on the front page (even if nobody clicks it).
- ohthehugemanate 10y ago
  that's an interesting definition of propaganda. It's certainly not an unbiased publication, it's an opinion paper. From their "about us" page: > The same page describes the Economist as “a Friday viewspaper, where the readers, with higher than average incomes, better than average minds but with less than average time, can test their opinions against ours. We try to tell the world about the world, to persuade the expert and reach the amateur, with an injection of opinion and argument.” From the same page: > "What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage." So you are certainly not going to get "unbiased news reporting". It's a "viewspaper" that takes declared, informed editorial stances. You will get extremely well thought out and researched opinions and analysis. "Propaganda" is a word usually reserved for intentionally contorting facts to favor a specific political entity. One can have an opinion without spouting propaganda. That's more the MSNBCs, Pravdas, and Fox Newses of the world. If you've ever read an economist article, the difference is obvious.
igivanov 10y ago
I don't know if anyone should trust such a Russophobic outlet. https://medium.com/@dominicbasulto/russophobia-and-the-dark-art-of-making-an-anti-russian-magazine-cover-94b11e32d53f#.bvivycdkx https://medium.com/@dominicbasulto/russophobia-and-the-dark-...
- therealpeal 10y ago
  "Russophobic" people are afraid of countries that invade and occupy other countries (bonus points if it's a dictatorship). This is not irrational.

sebtoast 10y ago

Le Devoir has a reputation of having a left bias doesn't it? I like the newspaper and I would like to subscribe, I'm just saying I often heard some bias complaints. It also has a cool founding history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Devoir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Devoir

gnuvince 10y ago
You'll see the left bias in the editorial pieces, but in news stories the writing is as neutral as I've seen. In Montreal, the alternatives are the Journal de Montréal (too much gossip, not enough hard information), La Presse (very good, liberal bias), The Gazette (liberal bias). Another important reason that pushed me toward Le Devoir: it's the only paper (not just in Canada, but everywhere I've looked) that has a PDF version; you get facsimile of the paper edition, which is very nice to read with something like zathura.