Live data from Hacker News

The FT's chief executive on AI, "loyalist" readers, and its U.S. expansion

niemanlab.org

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: The FT's chief executive on AI, "loyalist" readers, and its U.S. expansion

#31
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Such a great show. So much of it still resonates

What show is this?

Re: The FT's chief executive on AI, "loyalist" readers, and its U.S. expansion

#32
post #21

I’m a long-time FT reader. It’s certainly a finance paper at heart, which means a certain cold calculus in its outlook of the world. But unlike, say, Bloomberg, it also writes about culture and food and pop music, interviews artists, takes books seriously, even has a lively fashion section. So for Americans, maybe it’s like Bloomberg via the New Yorker set in London (making regular trips to the continent). I have to…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: The FT's chief executive on AI, "loyalist" readers, and its U.S. expansion

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a great show. So much of it still resonates

What show is this?

"Yes, Minister!" And "Yes, Prime Minister!"

And don‘t forget:

Sir Humphrey : The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.

Jim Hacker : Don't tell me about the Press. I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey : Oh, and Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard Woolley : Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.

Re: The FT's chief executive on AI, "loyalist" readers, and its U.S. expansion

#34
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think NYT has a right wing editorial department then you really are left wing as they come. I can only imagine how left wing FT's editorial department is.

Edit: assuming the parent wasn't changed, I misread it and I'm correcting this comment. Sorry. Re: the NYT's editorial department: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39661650

Who are you quoting? Why?

Re: The FT's chief executive on AI, "loyalist" readers, and its U.S. expansion

#36
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: assuming the parent wasn't changed, I misread it and I'm correcting this comment. Sorry. Re: the NYT's editorial department: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39661650

Who are you quoting? Why?

I think I misread your comment, unless you updated it. I updated mine.

Re: The FT's chief executive on AI, "loyalist" readers, and its U.S. expansion

#37
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are you quoting? Why?

I think I misread your comment, unless you updated it. I updated mine.

I didn't update it. I am quoting GP in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39661339

Re: The FT's chief executive on AI, "loyalist" readers, and its U.S. expansion

#38
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's pretty funny given the traditional knock on big paper journalism was how left-wing they were. (They were/are very mainstream whatever that means.)

As with our political parties, there are no left wing papers in the United States, at least not by the accounting of the median developed democracy. They may run individual stories of a particular bent, but the NYTimes overall is a right wing news source. One need only consider how they handled the Iraq War or pander to conservative moral panics around trans people for this to be obvious, and I’m speaking specifically to their so-called reporting on these issues, separate from the editorial department. The NYTimes is also wildly anti-union and routinely engages in intimidation tactics against its staff, eliminated their public oversight editor position, among many other egregious examples.

Re: The FT's chief executive on AI, "loyalist" readers, and its U.S. expansion

#39
Reposting a comment I made about a month ago about the FT: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39177792

---

Late last year, I signed up for a daily delivery of a physical copy of The Financial Times. I rarely read news websites, other than HN and Reddit. Why? Because I wanted to be informed about world events but dislike the always-on nature of online news, and because I have a certain romantic ideal of reading the morning newspaper with a cup of coffee. Unfortunately it doesn't arrive in the morning and usually comes around noon.

How has it been? Both good and bad. I do like having a physical paper put in the mailbox, as it's fun to look forward to a "delivery" every day that is more real than just looking at my phone.

On the other hand, I find the FT to be worth reading only about every other issue, largely because there simply isn't enough news to report in 24 hours. The opinion and editorial sections make up a decent portion of the paper and largely aren't worth reading. But, every other issue or so, there are a few excellent articles absolutely worth the price of admission. And even then, the quality of the "boring" articles is leaps and bounds above what I used to read in the NYT or the Guardian.

I'm not sure if I'll be renewing it later this year, as it does feel like I'm wasting a lot of paper – but only on the days when I don't enjoy the articles. I wish they had a twice weekly edition, which would be the perfect interval IMO.

---

Since then, my opinion has only been solidified. I find their opinion takes to be pretty boilerplate predictable and not very thoughtful. I guess I'd only recommend it if you want a robust overview of daily business news. Otherwise, their general news articles are nothing special. But, they are still much less biased than the NYT, which is what I'm most familiar with.

Re: The FT's chief executive on AI, "loyalist" readers, and its U.S. expansion

#40

Reposting a comment I made about a month ago about the FT: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39177792 --- Late last year, I signed up for a daily delivery of a physical copy of The Financial Times. I rarely read news websites, other than HN and Reddit. Why? Because I wanted to be informed about world events but dislike the always-on nature of online news, and because I have a certain romantic ideal of reading the…

I wonder what your review of the WSJ would be :-)

It's sad to think how many people respect their editorial board articles - so low rent.

Post reply on HN