11–20 of 58 posts
Who is FT for, compared to other premium news outlets in the United States? In the recent years I’ve been shopping around a news subscription, trying to avoid clickbait and thought bubbles. I don’t think I understand their target audience, even after reading the entire interview.
There are a handful of global news brands with readers that are willing/able to pay significant subscription fees for. FT is one of them but US readers mostly consider them the European WSJ and subscribe to the WSJ if they are willing to pay for that sort of thing. I'm not sure the FT makes sense for US readers on a budget. Personally I do the NYT and Economist so it's not like I don't pay for news and commentary but…
I’m about as left wing as they come. I would never pay for the WSJ because their standard reporting is so insanely biased toward American right wing politics as to rarely be of any specific value, relative to other sources. I do, however, pay for and read the Financial Times, because it’s the paper businesses rely on then to tell them the unvarnished realities of the world in which they operate, regardless of any pol…
Who is FT for, compared to other premium news outlets in the United States? In the recent years I’ve been shopping around a news subscription, trying to avoid clickbait and thought bubbles. I don’t think I understand their target audience, even after reading the entire interview.
It's basically WSJ with a somewhat more global perspective, and Euro-centric instead of US-centric.
Who is FT for, compared to other premium news outlets in the United States? In the recent years I’ve been shopping around a news subscription, trying to avoid clickbait and thought bubbles. I don’t think I understand their target audience, even after reading the entire interview.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Never do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Well, you're a banker. Surely you read the Financial Times?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Can't understand it. Full of economic theory.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Why do you buy it?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Oh, you know, it's part of the uniform. Took me 30 years to understand Keynes' economics. Then when I'd just cottoned on, everyone started getting hooked on these new monetarist ideas, you know, "I Want To Be Free" by Milton Shulman.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Milton Friedman.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Why are they all called Milton? Anyway, I've only got as far as Milton Keynes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Maynard Keynes.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : I'm sure there's a Milton Keynes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, there is, but it's...
[Humphrey gives up]
Who is FT for, compared to other premium news outlets in the United States? In the recent years I’ve been shopping around a news subscription, trying to avoid clickbait and thought bubbles. I don’t think I understand their target audience, even after reading the entire interview.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Didn't you read the Financial Times this morning? Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Never do. Sir Humphrey Appleby : Well, you're a banker. Surely you read the Financial Times? Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Can't understand it. Full of economic theory. Sir Humphrey Appleby : Why do you buy it? Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Oh, you know, it's part of the uniform. Took me 30 years to understand Keynes' economics. T…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m about as left wing as they come. I would never pay for the WSJ because their standard reporting is so insanely biased toward American right wing politics as to rarely be of any specific value, relative to other sources. I do, however, pay for and read the Financial Times, because it’s the paper businesses rely on then to tell them the unvarnished realities of the world in which they operate, regardless of any pol…
You probably have to distinguish the WSJ opinion/editorial pages from the news. There's definitely a conservative bias in editorial. (I know and have known a number of folks who have worked in that area.) But news seems pretty neutral in the context of the area where the paper plays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's basically WSJ with a somewhat more global perspective, and Euro-centric instead of US-centric.
And much softer, more centrist politics. WSJ is every bit a Murdoch paper
There are a handful of global news brands with readers that are willing/able to pay significant subscription fees for. FT is one of them but US readers mostly consider them the European WSJ and subscribe to the WSJ if they are willing to pay for that sort of thing. I'm not sure the FT makes sense for US readers on a budget. Personally I do the NYT and Economist so it's not like I don't pay for news and commentary but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably have to distinguish the WSJ opinion/editorial pages from the news. There's definitely a conservative bias in editorial. (I know and have known a number of folks who have worked in that area.) But news seems pretty neutral in the context of the area where the paper plays.
No, it bleeds into their reporting as well. The NYTimes has the same problem, a right wing editorial department that is constantly interfering with and undermining their news coverage. The FT doesn’t have these problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably have to distinguish the WSJ opinion/editorial pages from the news. There's definitely a conservative bias in editorial. (I know and have known a number of folks who have worked in that area.) But news seems pretty neutral in the context of the area where the paper plays.
No, it bleeds into their reporting as well. The NYTimes has the same problem, a right wing editorial department that is constantly interfering with and undermining their news coverage. The FT doesn’t have these problems.
The NYT is very different: They cover the spectrum, from Ross Douthat who is pretty far right, (edit: to David French, rational religious right) to Brett Stephens (former WSJ opinion page editor) to David Brooks (more center-right), and more. The notable exception is no pro-Trump writers, but they are not bound to publish lies and nonsense.
Progressives think the NYT is a corporate tool. I wonder what the far right thinks of the WSJ.