Sounds very appealing. Anyone here have experience with it? If I want to try it, should I go print or digital? How is the writing compared to say The Economist or other more mainstream options?

▲

dwedge 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How is the economist these days? Around a decade ago I read it cover to cover every week for 18 months, but during the brexkt referendum they seemed to go into a tantrum and half of the magazine was always about how brexit was 100% a bad thing. Even if I agreed with them I don't like "100%" biased news because at some point it's like propaganda. I understand they were started in support of trade deals but even so. Has it improved?

	▲	LVB an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I've lapsed my subscription because it has, in my opinion, gotten a bit too clickbait-y and many of the articles are sort of thin rehashes of already covered material. It is still better than most, but also fairly pricy.
	▲	xmprt 27 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> Even if I agreed with them I don't like "100%" biased news I can understand why this might seem like a good take to have but sometimes you need 100% biased news because some things are 100% biased. Things like climate change is real or genocide is bad should not be controversial takes. Convincing people that there are two sides to an argument is exactly how you end up with sensationalism and extreme views that push the Overton window.
	▲	Seattle3503 an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It seems fine now
	▲	carlosjobim an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You mean "The E-Communist"?

▲

datakan 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Also interested in what their biases may be. Being "slow" isn't really enough, they also need to be fair and honest.

	▲	speerer 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Having subscribeed for years, I find it very good on that front. I haven't detected any political bias, and I suspect they would say that fairness and honesty is what the "journalism" half of "slow journalism" means.