3 ms·

Everything in this study is dependant on how they measure the very vague term 'populist'. I understand what they mean when they say 'HuffPo' and 'Breitbart'.

Everything in this study is dependant on how they measure the very vague term 'populist'. I understand what they mean when they say 'HuffPo' and 'Breitbart'. But ... 'Vanity Fair' etc. present a problem: these are 'high brow' and 'intellectual' publications, but they are no less susceptible to memes and narratives. Moreover, WaPo, NYT etc. are 'high quality' but still 'narrative oriented'. I find if you want to know about something, listen to the channels that don't have a stake in the game: getting regular news from the Financial Times can be weirdly refreshing because it's just so sober.

whytaka 7y ago
I had the impression that Financial Times was the perfect representation of the globalist financial elites who serve no nation and only themselves. I used to read it but no longer since they raised their paywall.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  The FT is written by European style Liberal Democrats who are basically 'free market' types but who accept some degree of socialism, but on social issues they are definitely left of centre. Or rather, they are not 'woke', and wouldn't be voicing issues such as non-binary gender normalization etc. - but they would support gay marriage, would be against discrimination etc.. So their 'interest' is 'big business' ... but that's the whole point of the publication (!). Consider that I have never read an article in the FT for example lamenting socialized medicine in Europe (maybe 15% of the entire European economy is socialized just in that area alone). The readership is probably a little more business and less academic. Basically: 'polite businessmen'. The writers definitely have an academic/intellectual streak. The FT is more European version 'Mitt Romney', not 'Donald Trump' and not 'Wolf of Wall Street', and not even 'Rothschild'. It doesn't have an aggressive tone. Because the FT has a stable readership, they are one of the most intellectually oriented publications going. Their podcasts are a nerdshow - they'll take an hour to interview the authors of arcane books on economics. Or members of the Fed in the US. You can have a look at the columnist background here [1]. It's not exactly Wall Street. On the 2cnd most recent Alphachat podcast, they were discussing Picketty's inequality data, not in a cynical way. They occasionally have a look at some social issues, but in a more classically North American Liberal kind of way, but not from a 'woke' perspective. Of super relevance to this post is the most recent Alphaville podcast, I highly recommend it [2], "Will Davies on populism, data and experts" an interview about an author about a book on populism. [1] https://www.ft.com/columnists https://www.ft.com/columnists [2] https://ftalphaville.ft.com/series/Alphachat https://ftalphaville.ft.com/series/Alphachat
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    That's a very... American perspective of the European mainstream right. No Conservative who wants to be elected is going to lament the NHS. They will talk at length about how wonderful and irreplaceable the NHS is at the same time as voting in government for market reforms or internal markets that have always made the service to patients worse. Always worse, never better. They will consistently under-fund it - under the Tories waiting lists always rise, and health outcomes decline. Only the lunatic fringe on the extreme right would advocate ripping up something that works, to replace it with something 4x more expensive. Oh, and it was the UK Conservative party that legalised gay marriage. This is the same Conservative party that has given 10 years of dogma led small-government, destroy services austerity in order to sort the national finances out, whilst making the national finances far, far worse. They are definitely of the right, far to the right of Thatcher, but they are not the Republican party or the Lib Dems. The FT serves and is of the right as it exists in the UK and Europe where they are published. Where most business owners will have a more sympathetic view to those issues. They seem to manage to serve their audience much better than the current Tory party. Totally agree about their intellectual streak though - you can get an excellent, and generally very accurate dive into many topics that you'd be hard pushed to see elsewhere.
    - sonnyblarney 7y ago
      "Only the lunatic fringe on the extreme right would advocate ripping up something that works, to replace it with something 4x more expensive. " Most European healthcare systems are a blend of private/public, some err a little more towards private, and they work just fine, and they are not '4x more expensive'. To suggest that the UK could model themselves after Germany or Switzerland or the Netherlands is not remotely 'lunatic'. The FT doesn't 'serve' anyone - they just make financial commentary but will never 'rock the boat' on any issue.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        > lamenting socialized medicine in Europe (maybe 15% of the entire European economy is socialized just in that area alone) Which I take to mean replacing with or discussing a fully private model, losing the public/social aspect. The NHS is a blend of private/public too. Adopting the German or Dutch model wouldn't be the end of socialised medicine but more a different variation on the theme. Some work better than others. Adopting a US model would end the socialised aspect. The FT, like all businesses, attempts to serve their customers - in this case the business owning readership. They have surprised on occasion, and not just via their pro Europe stance. Which has at least been consistent.
mywittyname 7y ago
> Everything in this study is dependant on how they measure the very vague term 'populist'. They claimed to asked people to rate two questions on a five-point scale from strongly-disagree to strongly-agree: 1. most elected officials don’t care what people like me think 2. the people should be asked whenever important decisions are taken. The higher the score, the more populist a subject is considered. Which defines a populist as a person who thinks they should be heard, but do not feel as though they are. Considering most people in the US are going to agree strongly with two, most people are going to be considered populist.
- CM30 7y ago
  Not just most people in the US. Most people worldwide at the moment would probably be classed as 'populist' under those criteria.

whytaka 7y ago

I had the impression that Financial Times was the perfect representation of the globalist financial elites who serve no nation and only themselves. I used to read it but no longer since they raised their paywall.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
The FT is written by European style Liberal Democrats who are basically 'free market' types but who accept some degree of socialism, but on social issues they are definitely left of centre. Or rather, they are not 'woke', and wouldn't be voicing issues such as non-binary gender normalization etc. - but they would support gay marriage, would be against discrimination etc.. So their 'interest' is 'big business' ... but that's the whole point of the publication (!). Consider that I have never read an article in the FT for example lamenting socialized medicine in Europe (maybe 15% of the entire European economy is socialized just in that area alone). The readership is probably a little more business and less academic. Basically: 'polite businessmen'. The writers definitely have an academic/intellectual streak. The FT is more European version 'Mitt Romney', not 'Donald Trump' and not 'Wolf of Wall Street', and not even 'Rothschild'. It doesn't have an aggressive tone. Because the FT has a stable readership, they are one of the most intellectually oriented publications going. Their podcasts are a nerdshow - they'll take an hour to interview the authors of arcane books on economics. Or members of the Fed in the US. You can have a look at the columnist background here [1]. It's not exactly Wall Street. On the 2cnd most recent Alphachat podcast, they were discussing Picketty's inequality data, not in a cynical way. They occasionally have a look at some social issues, but in a more classically North American Liberal kind of way, but not from a 'woke' perspective. Of super relevance to this post is the most recent Alphaville podcast, I highly recommend it [2], "Will Davies on populism, data and experts" an interview about an author about a book on populism. [1] https://www.ft.com/columnists https://www.ft.com/columnists [2] https://ftalphaville.ft.com/series/Alphachat https://ftalphaville.ft.com/series/Alphachat
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  That's a very... American perspective of the European mainstream right. No Conservative who wants to be elected is going to lament the NHS. They will talk at length about how wonderful and irreplaceable the NHS is at the same time as voting in government for market reforms or internal markets that have always made the service to patients worse. Always worse, never better. They will consistently under-fund it - under the Tories waiting lists always rise, and health outcomes decline. Only the lunatic fringe on the extreme right would advocate ripping up something that works, to replace it with something 4x more expensive. Oh, and it was the UK Conservative party that legalised gay marriage. This is the same Conservative party that has given 10 years of dogma led small-government, destroy services austerity in order to sort the national finances out, whilst making the national finances far, far worse. They are definitely of the right, far to the right of Thatcher, but they are not the Republican party or the Lib Dems. The FT serves and is of the right as it exists in the UK and Europe where they are published. Where most business owners will have a more sympathetic view to those issues. They seem to manage to serve their audience much better than the current Tory party. Totally agree about their intellectual streak though - you can get an excellent, and generally very accurate dive into many topics that you'd be hard pushed to see elsewhere.
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    "Only the lunatic fringe on the extreme right would advocate ripping up something that works, to replace it with something 4x more expensive. " Most European healthcare systems are a blend of private/public, some err a little more towards private, and they work just fine, and they are not '4x more expensive'. To suggest that the UK could model themselves after Germany or Switzerland or the Netherlands is not remotely 'lunatic'. The FT doesn't 'serve' anyone - they just make financial commentary but will never 'rock the boat' on any issue.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      > lamenting socialized medicine in Europe (maybe 15% of the entire European economy is socialized just in that area alone) Which I take to mean replacing with or discussing a fully private model, losing the public/social aspect. The NHS is a blend of private/public too. Adopting the German or Dutch model wouldn't be the end of socialised medicine but more a different variation on the theme. Some work better than others. Adopting a US model would end the socialised aspect. The FT, like all businesses, attempts to serve their customers - in this case the business owning readership. They have surprised on occasion, and not just via their pro Europe stance. Which has at least been consistent.

mywittyname 7y ago

> Everything in this study is dependant on how they measure the very vague term 'populist'. They claimed to asked people to rate two questions on a five-point scale from strongly-disagree to strongly-agree: 1. most elected officials don’t care what people like me think 2. the people should be asked whenever important decisions are taken. The higher the score, the more populist a subject is considered. Which defines a populist as a person who thinks they should be heard, but do not feel as though they are. Considering most people in the US are going to agree strongly with two, most people are going to be considered populist.

CM30 7y ago
Not just most people in the US. Most people worldwide at the moment would probably be classed as 'populist' under those criteria.