3 ms·

Reliable by what metric? The FT panders just as hard, it has its own severe biases that result in deeply unreliable reporting. My go-to example of how unrelia

Reliable by what metric? The FT panders just as hard, it has its own severe biases that result in deeply unreliable reporting. My go-to example of how unreliable the FT can be is an article they published before the Brexit referendum. It said the FT had polled a panel of over 100 "experts" and "leading thinkers". Every single one thought a vote to leave would damage economic growth. In fact economic growth accelerated. The FT, by the way, literally flies the EU flag above its offices in London. https://www.ft.com/content/1a86ab36-afbe-11e5-b955-1a1d298b6250 https://www.ft.com/content/1a86ab36-afbe-11e5-b955-1a1d298b6... In the FT’s annual poll of more than 100 leading thinkers, not one thought a vote for Brexit would enhance UK growth in 2016. Where is the line between spectacularly bad reporting and propaganda? If the FT really couldn't find a single "leading thinker" who could actually get it right in a pool of 100, and they didn't even realise that was a problem, how reliable can their coverage on other topics be? Like all newspapers the FT employs generalists who rely heavily on FT-identified 'leading thinkers' for analysis and facts. If they aren't able to spot self-created bias and groupthink on the topic of Europe then they surely cannot in other areas. I agree with rtpg - journalism seems to have a serious sickness and I'd pay for news sources that seemed to have real commitments and processes in place to ensure wide-angle reporting.

pjc50 9y ago
> In fact economic growth accelerated. Really? Are you sure? It's still in the fractional percentage points: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth And some of that article says "medium term". There is still no decision on what Brexit will look like and the number of businesses planning accordingly is increasing. > "Don Smith, deputy chief investment officer at Brown Shipley, said: “The uncertainty generated by a decision to leave the EU would undoubtedly be damaging for sterling assets across the board and, indeed, the value of sterling on foreign exchanges" Sterling was 1.3 to the euro just before the vote and is now 1.13.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  Yes, I'm sure. Look at the claim - it's specific to 2016. Sterling was 1.3 to the euro just before the vote and is now 1.13 Because the BoE panicked and dropped rates even further, which always hurts the value of a currency. Regardless, my point was about the prediction I specifically named and more generally, the vast wrongness of the FT - a problem that has gone unanalysed and uncorrected, as far as I know.
matt4077 9y ago
You're passing judgement on journalism. Yet you can't even distinguish between a paper's opinion, and that of the people it interviews. Specifically, the article you linked to includes the full statements of everyone they asked. You can obviously accuse them of selectively choosing their panel's composition, but (a) it appears this is a group of people they regularly poll, meaning it doesn't have a specific anti-brexit slant because it predates that issue. And (b) I challenge you to find a group of 100 people with similar credentials that reflects your opinion. I'd also like to see proof of brexit's positive effect in growth in 2016. Hint: that's impossible to do, unless you have an alternative universe. If you invest the time to actually read the opinions, you'll also notice that almost every single one says they expect little effect on growth in 2016, which is probably pretty close to the truth, considering the referendum only happened in June, and the second half' numbers are completely within the normal range. I'd also point out that several of comments quoted by the FT are as pro-brexit as you seem to want them to be. And that there are quite a lot of people today who would consider comments such as the following to be exactly the sort of contribution to public discourse that was regrettably underrepresented in the run-up to brexit: We cannot count on the EU being prepared to grant continued access to the European market on the same privileged terms, particularly if the divorce turns vitriolic (contrary to received wisdom, in terms of trade flows "they" do not need "us" as much as we need them). And, if it were so easy to expand trade with the rest of the world to compensate, you would expect that to be happening already.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  Of course I can tell the difference. My point is exactly that the FT chose who to interview and who to present as 'leading thinkers', yet they were all wrong, every single one. Clearly the notion that they were 'leading thinkers' was entirely the opinion of the people at the FT and clearly their thinking was anything but high quality. And (b) I challenge you to find a group of 100 people with similar credentials that reflects your opinion. 100 random members of the British public would have got it more right than this panel did. Obviously gaining a credential in this space results in less ability to analyse the situation, rather than more.

pjc50 9y ago

> In fact economic growth accelerated. Really? Are you sure? It's still in the fractional percentage points: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth And some of that article says "medium term". There is still no decision on what Brexit will look like and the number of businesses planning accordingly is increasing. > "Don Smith, deputy chief investment officer at Brown Shipley, said: “The uncertainty generated by a decision to leave the EU would undoubtedly be damaging for sterling assets across the board and, indeed, the value of sterling on foreign exchanges" Sterling was 1.3 to the euro just before the vote and is now 1.13.

peoplewindow 9y ago
Yes, I'm sure. Look at the claim - it's specific to 2016. Sterling was 1.3 to the euro just before the vote and is now 1.13 Because the BoE panicked and dropped rates even further, which always hurts the value of a currency. Regardless, my point was about the prediction I specifically named and more generally, the vast wrongness of the FT - a problem that has gone unanalysed and uncorrected, as far as I know.

matt4077 9y ago

You're passing judgement on journalism. Yet you can't even distinguish between a paper's opinion, and that of the people it interviews. Specifically, the article you linked to includes the full statements of everyone they asked. You can obviously accuse them of selectively choosing their panel's composition, but (a) it appears this is a group of people they regularly poll, meaning it doesn't have a specific anti-brexit slant because it predates that issue. And (b) I challenge you to find a group of 100 people with similar credentials that reflects your opinion. I'd also like to see proof of brexit's positive effect in growth in 2016. Hint: that's impossible to do, unless you have an alternative universe. If you invest the time to actually read the opinions, you'll also notice that almost every single one says they expect little effect on growth in 2016, which is probably pretty close to the truth, considering the referendum only happened in June, and the second half' numbers are completely within the normal range. I'd also point out that several of comments quoted by the FT are as pro-brexit as you seem to want them to be. And that there are quite a lot of people today who would consider comments such as the following to be exactly the sort of contribution to public discourse that was regrettably underrepresented in the run-up to brexit: We cannot count on the EU being prepared to grant continued access to the European market on the same privileged terms, particularly if the divorce turns vitriolic (contrary to received wisdom, in terms of trade flows "they" do not need "us" as much as we need them). And, if it were so easy to expand trade with the rest of the world to compensate, you would expect that to be happening already.

peoplewindow 9y ago
Of course I can tell the difference. My point is exactly that the FT chose who to interview and who to present as 'leading thinkers', yet they were all wrong, every single one. Clearly the notion that they were 'leading thinkers' was entirely the opinion of the people at the FT and clearly their thinking was anything but high quality. And (b) I challenge you to find a group of 100 people with similar credentials that reflects your opinion. 100 random members of the British public would have got it more right than this panel did. Obviously gaining a credential in this space results in less ability to analyse the situation, rather than more.