![]() ![]() Having spent eight years in the comfortable favor of Barack Obama, a position so secure that they faced zero consequences for such glaring moral and journalistic failings as the endorsement of the Iraq War, the “Failing New York Times” and its fellows now thrash in fury at their sudden irrelevance to these crude new political elites. Even Fukuyama himself acknowledges the instability of the American liberal political trajectory, proclaiming, “Socialism ought to come back.” David Brooks, on the other hand. . .Īdding insult to injury, the Gray Lady is suddenly the object of constant scorn from the nation’s highest office. Karl Marx knew it, your average Detroit autoworker certainly knows it, and Edward Luce of FT knows it. The past presidential election was a shock to nearly everyone whose job it was to predict its outcome, and both the Bernie and Trump upsets prove that we have not, as Fukuyama predicted, reached “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution.” The idea of the “End of History” lost credibility with anyone paying attention to skyrocketing wealth inequality and political unrest, and it’s pretty clear that the world remains a raging battle between the haves and have-nots. Recently, however, Fukuyamism has taken a serious blow. ![]() When it does run soft news, it’s higher quality (Rana Foroohar’s “Lunch with the FT” with Rebecca Solnit, for example, transcends the genre of fawning celebrity profile into an understated but scathing critique).Ĭonversely, the New York Times is the flagship publication for liberal triumphalism it holds the line of Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History”-the notion that all serious ideological conflict crashed to a halt with the suspension of the Cold War, with very little at stake in future political disputes beyond regional trade accords and fine-tuning of currency regimes. Most refreshing, the FT does not lose itself in the mire of myopic American culture wars, which very rarely breach the surface of material politics and/or economics. ICYMI: A NYT article about Twitter got lot of pushback from journalistsĬompared to the Times, the reporting is usually more in-depth the reporters generally have more expertise the coverage is more comprehensive both geographically and substantively even the op-eds are better (likely because they are far fewer, and they’re not used to pad the paper with “content”-confessionals, puff pieces, listicles-rather than reporting). It covers the world as it is-a global battle not of ideas or values, but of economic and political interests. The answer is simple: by literally any measure, the Financial Times is just a better paper. ![]() This makes me something of a curiosity among my colleagues at traditional media institutions-staffed largely by liberals-so I often find myself explaining my preference for the pink paper of liberal capitalism over the Gray Lady of cultural liberalism. I’m a writer, though my biggest audience comes from the listenership of Chapo Trap House, a popular leftist comedy podcast. ![]() I take care to read the kidding-not-kidding op-eds from wealthy people demanding that children be banned from restaurants and art museums.Īs a “big S” Socialist, my reading habits often surprise liberals. If it’s the weekend edition, I even read most of House & Home, whose editors seem to have an incredibly generous definition of “real estate,” making room for topics like homelessness and wildlife conservation. I drink my coffee and proceed to read the entirety of the Financial Times, excluding the particularly dense bits of the Companies & Markets section. I then walk back to my apartment, look at the front page of the New York Times for approximately five to eight seconds, and throw the whole thing in the garbage with contempt. I feed them, make coffee, and walk barefoot and unwashed (mug in hand) through my apartment building’s common hallway to the front door, where I pick up my New York Times and my Financial Times. Every morning that I’m not hungover, I wake up around 8am, because that is when my two cats start howling for breakfast. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |