3 ms·
True. Although I found that the financial times is pretty neutral and the articles have a very high quality. You do not have to have Gell Mann amnesia to read i
by andi999 6y ago
True. Although I found that the financial times is pretty neutral and the articles have a very high quality. You do not have to have Gell Mann amnesia to read it.
Maybe it is the target audience. If you want to make money, you do not want your information to be politically biased.
- rsynnott 6y agoI think probably the problem there is, what is bias anyway? In the UK, Brexiters have been complaining for years that the FT is massively biased, because it isn't sufficiently complimentary of Brexit. A lot of people seem to define media bias as not being 'in the middle'; in the Brexit case, facts have a remain bias, so many people perceive the FT's largely factual reporting on Brexit as bias. The only way to produce Brexit reporting that would satisfy the 'in the middle' people would be, frankly, either to not print most of the news about Brexit, or to outright make stuff up.
- newen 6y ago> facts have a remain bias ... Or, FT could actually acknowledge that the remain folks have legitimate arguments.
- rsynnott 6y agoSure, and they do. But some people interpret that as bias, because it isn't occupying a largely imaginary position equidistantly between remain and leave. When the average person talks about media bias, they do _not_ actually mean 'factual reporting', or 'independent editorial policy', or anything like that; they mean either 'agrees with me' or 'occupies a weird artificial center position'. Some (usually public) broadcasters actually have 'equal-time' rules, which can produce fairly bizarre results.