Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

niemanlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

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

#21

Post by pavlov »

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 say, the FT has a bizarre blind spot that it shares with almost all other UK media: trans rights. They write about trans people with tones and assumptions that remind of how gays were treated in media in the 1970s. Recently the FT interviewed Judith Butler, and wasted a lot of time (hers and the readers’) on nonsense like “aren’t trans women rapists”.

But at least they made the effort to interview someone like Judith Butler, who is outside of the comfort zone of their readership. The WSJ wouldn’t do that.

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

#22

Post by wolverine876 »

hhghghd wrote: post #19
bugglebeetle wrote: post #16

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.

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

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

#23

Post by Tomte »

_dain_ wrote: post #14
bitmasher9 wrote: post #3

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…

> I'm sure there's a Milton Keynes.

I‘ve watched the series, and had no idea there‘s a city of that name!

How… why does it look like a given name and family name?

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

#24

Post by ghaff »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #16
ghaff wrote: post #12

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.

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.)

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

#25

Post by goodmunky »

pavlov wrote: 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]

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

#26

Post by ghaff »

wolverine876 wrote: post #20
bugglebeetle wrote: post #16

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.

The WSJ opinion side is uniformly conservative and pro-GOP / anti-Dem/liberal. 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…

Having some visibility into the WSJ... it's conservative but not MAGA.

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

#27

Post by wolverine876 »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #3

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.

Its perspective and focus is business, and is European. That can make it a good complement to leading US news sources such as the NYT.

FT is, IMHO, the most intellectually sophisticated daily newspaper in the world, ahead of the NYT. FT columnists are just about the only ones I see anywhere that have intellectual honesty and also sophistication that makes them worth reading. (In other publications, IMHO opinion columns of every political stripe are an exercise in spinning news to favor their 'constituency', and are transparently misleading to someone who is otherwise well-informed.)

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

#28

Post by wolverine876 »

ghaff wrote: post #26
wolverine876 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WSJ opinion side is uniformly conservative and pro-GOP / anti-Dem/liberal. 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…

Having some visibility into the WSJ... it's conservative but not MAGA.

What does the MAGA and associated crowd think of the WSJ, if you happen to know?

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

#29

Post by jjgreen »

Tomte wrote: post #23
_dain_ wrote: 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…

> I'm sure there's a Milton Keynes. I‘ve watched the series, and had no idea there‘s a city of that name! How… why does it look like a given name and family name?

It's not a city in the conventional sense, more a collection of roundabouts without a soul. Never try to hitch-hike near Milton Keynes.

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

#30

Post by pavlov »

goodmunky wrote: post #25
pavlov wrote: 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]

Yes, that’s exactly the argument made against gay rights in the 1970s: that people are gay by choice or because of a mental disorder, and that they’re actively corrupting and seducing young people, so they must not be allowed to be represented in public.

This was a very popular argument! See e.g. Anita Bryant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Bryant

The harm done by her campaign wasn’t just words and delayed rights for gays. Some violent gaybashers sent people to intensive care shouting “Here’s one for Anita!”

This is still the everyday reality for many trans people in America and the UK. Normalized hate touches every aspect of your life. It doesn’t have to be like this.

Post reply on HN