Eh, you say “bias,” I say “editorial policy.” 
Secessionist = We want our own new country.
Sovereignist = We want our own new country but we’ll still accept transfer payments from the old country.
I’m sure there are subtleties I’m missing, though.
Not all cities have openly biased newspapers. Some of them are secretive about it.
That’s not how I understand it at all. To me (and I guess most Quebecers), secessionist = sovereignist (or sovereigntist) = separatist = independentist. It’s all a question of what impression you want to give. Federalists say that independentists are separatists out to break Canada, independentists say they are sovereignists who want to make Québec’s sovereignty a reality. It means the same thing, there’s just a different ring to it.
As for wanting payments from the old country, I’d kind of like a cite for this. You may be referring to the old concept of “sovereignty-association”, but as far as I know, this meant keeping some links between Canada and an independent Québec. This might mean economic links (such as a common currency), but I never read it as meaning that Canada would have to give unearned money to Québec.
This said, matt_mcl is right, among Montreal’s newspapers, Le Devoir is known to be sovereignist while La Presse is known to be federalist. I read Le Devoir (not because of its editorial position, but because it’s also known as Québec’s best newspaper), and the bias is visible. It mostly remains in the editorial pages, though, which is good.
In Ottawa, the three major newspapers are the Citizen, the Sun and Le Droit. The Sun, like every other Sun Media newspaper in the country (such as the Toronto Sun, mentioned earlier) is a right-wing populist tabloid. Le Droit has a mostly pro-Franco-Ontarian position, understandable since it started as French Ontario’s “battle” newspaper. As for the Citizen, I understand they are mostly a regular, centrist newspaper. Le Droit and the Citizen tend to clash on occasion, but mostly because one is a French and the other an English newspaper, which really has an influence on their ideological position.
In July 2000, one of their columnists referred to protesters as “faggots,” outside of quotation marks, on the front page.
Then there was that period in 2002 where they were trotting out all of these instant experts on the front page saying how converting to the US dollar and joining the US would be so wonderful, as if this was a major topic of current discussion, when literally nobody else was the slightest bit interested in any such measure.
I believe the Star has supported the Liberal Party in every single federal election held in the paper’s history, even in 1984 and 1988 when they had John Turner leading the party. Supporting the candidacy of John Turner in 1984 is roughly equivalent to supporting the captaincy of Joseph Hazelwood on March 25, 1989.
I believe, though I am not certain, that they have also supported the Liberal Party in almost every Ontario PROVINCIAL election ever held, even back when Bill Davis, arguably the greatest premier in the history of Canada, was running the PCs, while the Liberals were led by a succession of nincompooops.
As for the Post, two guesses as to who they always support in their short history.
The NY Times is conservative?!
The Boston Globe is moderate?!
It never ceases to amaze me how people can not see the blatant liberal bias in these papers. They don’t even try and hide it, really. Trying to claim they are moderate is silly. Trying to claim that they are conservative is insane.
Detroit has two papers. The Detroit News is biased toward Republicans, although to their credit they did not endorse Bush for president in 2004, preferring to endorse nobody. The Detroit Free Press is biased toward Democrats.
Funny, I was going to say something similar about your claims of “blatant liberal bias.”
If the New York Times and the Boston Globe were blatantly liberal rags, focused solely on destroying all things Republican/conservative, the Downing Street Memo would have been plastered on the front page on May 2nd with a headline in 144-point type screaming “BUSH TWISTED INTEL FOR IRAQ WAR” – instead of being quietly buried and ignored, as they did…
The notion of a “liberal media” is a lie concocted by conservatives, used solely to bludgeon the media from reporting the truth – which conservatives hate because it shows them in the most unflattering light.
The Glob is right, but you misspelled the Horrid. 
You forgot the Phoenix, although that’s understandable. The paper is occasionally referred to as the Fuck Us because much of their advertising revenue comes from the escort services, hotel masseurs, & “men’s health” clubs. Nobody actually reads the paper itself, they use it as a cover for the “Adult Entertainment” section in the same way a wino conceals his bottle in a paper bag. It may look nicer that way but they’re not fooling anyone.
Ahem. There *are * a few folks who read “The Straight Dope” in the Phoenix, too. Don’t be dissin’ the sponsors, now, it ain’t good for business.
Errmmm . . . interesting . . . Here’s how an actual leftist, Alexander Cockburn, views the Times – from his “Beat the Devil” column in The Nation, 5/30/05:
Allegations of “bias” become hopelessly confused when people indiscriminately use the word to describe both news reporting and opinion (the latter in the form of columns and editorials which are clearly expressions of opinion.)
Does the paper twist facts or selectively report them to create a particular impression? Can you easily tell what side the reporter is on? Then it is “biased” or “slanted”, and therefore unprofessional.
Does the paper express a firm opinion through its editorials, or have columnists with strong feelings about particular issues? Then it (or they) are opinionated, and possibly annoying and wrong-headed. But this should not be defined as “bias”.
I don’t know how many times I have read aggrieved letters to the editor from people who just can’t understand how so-and-so could possibly have panned a certain musical act, or criticized a politician who is Working For Our Families. “How can you say that in the paper?”
Because they own it, twit. Confine your beefing to what’s really critical - the content of the news section.
From the seventies- there have been some changes since:
London’s Daily Papers:
The Times is read by the people who run the country.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country.
The Guardian is read by the people who think they should be running the country.
The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country.
The Telegraph is read by the people who think this country should be run like it used to be.
The Express is read by those people who think it still is.
The Morning Star is read by the people who think that this country should be run by another country
And the Sun is read by those people who don’t care who runs the country, so long as she’s got big tits. 