3 ms·
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,
by pavlov 3y ago
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.
- goodmunky 3y ago[flagged]
- pavlov 3y agoYes, 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 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.
- goodmunky 3y agoThe two are not the same. One promotes radical chemical and surgical intervention in the face of ever increasing evidence that it actually makes lives worse. The other promotes acceptance and belief that you are fine the way you are.
- apantel 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throw100324 3y ago[flagged]