[barrikad]

Similar to how I, a committed communist, think The Economist is the best paper written in English. When a paper has a very explicit point of view that they don't hide, it's very easy to "read between the lines" and evaluate what they're saying on their own merits, taking their bias into consideration. The news is still the news, and you can make sense of what they're saying about it if you know their inherent biases. This is why I prefer sources like The Economist, who are happy to tell you they're classically liberal, rather than somewhere like CNN that's "unbiased news" that's really very biased without consciously revealing this bias.

[nicoco]

>The news is still the news

Since it's impossible to cover everything that happens in the universe, choosing which news is important is a big part of being partial.

Anyway, I am less surprised that a revolutionary comrade like you is interested in knowing how the establishment thinks (to fight it I guess) than by OP's attitude, i.e., a reactionary taking interest (and judging positively) what the revolutionaries are writing. In my experience, people self-labelling as right-leaning tend to dismiss anything coming from the left as "utopian bullshit".

[barrikad]

Labeling 'Le Monde," the most trusted newspaper in France and one of the largest papers on the planet as one written by "revolutionaries" is rich. There's far more difference between my politics and Le Monde than Le Monde and The Economist, both of which are still fundamentally liberal, reformist papers that accept the rule of capital and that capitalism is the Only System, just disagree on slight reforms around the edges. OP isn't that strange since Le Monde and him probably agree on most larger political decisions and just disagree about the reforms around the edges unless they're like a monarchist or something.

[nicoco]

bayart (and most people ITT) are talking about le monde diplomatique, not le monde