7 ms·
As much as I agree with many of the biases of the Grauniad, I feel increasingly irritated by the blatant pandering to my sensibilities. The 'what happened' part
by cjs_ac 1y ago
As much as I agree with many of the biases of the Grauniad, I feel increasingly irritated by the blatant pandering to my sensibilities. The 'what happened' part of the article is so short on details it's barely there and the 'analysis' part is almost always just telling me who are the goodies and who are the baddies. If they quote experts, it's always an explanation of the most basic shit, because that's all the journalist understood. All of the non-elite media is like this: the analytics seem to have told them that ragebait is the only thing that gets ad revenue.
I just want to know what's going on in the world, and interesting analysis. I don't want analysis that tells me that I'm a good person, I want analysis that tells me something interesting about the world, even if I don't agree with it. If I have to pay a Bond villain to get that, so be it.
- varispeed 1y agoI get it - FT feels like the antidote to shallow ragebait because it's polished, detailed, and authoritative. But in my opinion, papers like the FT, exist less to inform you fully and more to shape your perception - a polished form of narrative management for the benefit of the said elites, not you. The elites themselves, though, aren't relying on newspaper analysis. They have access to internal briefings, specialised research, paid private reports, strategic intelligence, and direct advisor networks - insights and data that never make it into public media channels.