Populists prefer TV to online news, but are sticking to Facebook as others leave
niemanlab.org
niemanlab.org
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why would anyone make that conclusion?
"They have surprised on occasion, and not just via their pro Europe stance. "
???
I think you might be misinterpreting what 'neoliberal' is.
The EU is their project.
The EU started as a business cartel (for reference on that, ironically see Yanis Varoufakis interview on FT podcast), i.e. the 'European Coal and Steel' community. It was a 'Common Market' for decades before any material political integration.
It has a 'social' side, but mostly it has business interests: single market economy, single currency, standardized regulatory environment, EU level commercial law, no tariffs, no trade barriers, full capital and labour mobility, a Central Bank, a central 'investment bank' (i.e. EIF).
... now throw in a very weak and unrepresentative democracy, and weakened local governments as a nice bonus.
This is a neoliberal wet dream.
The Lib Dems, as the closest political body to represent FT types, has always been 'pro EU' because it's their thing.
Look at Macron's candidacy for example - this guy came out of thin air to basically take over the Republic with full support of most major papers, and tons of glowing coverage even outside France? Where did this guy magically appear from? The centre of French business community - they tapped him, and worked even with their would-be opponents on many issues (classical leftist press) to go 'full in' on 'anyone but Le Pen'. Now he's the head of the LibDem group in the EU Parliament, which will have the most weight in deciding the EU Presidency.
'Big business' almost always wants 'more EU' for very obvious reasons, unless it grinds them on a particular cause (i.e. some entities in The City may be opposed to losing rights, some fisheries etc.)
Not really misinterpreting - the EU was very much a political integration project in 1974 when the UK joined the "common market", it just wasn't marketed to the public as such. For instance a common foreign policy was already mostly in place, as was "ever closer union", which would later become the problem phrase for the Tory party. Heath knew that. It was in all the documents from the very beginning. Many of the restraints of trade and labour focused measures were there from the very start too.
Even the preceding Coal and Steel Community was built around merging the democracies.[1] One of the founding aims in the very first signed treaty was to transform Europe step by step to a unified single state. It also had those developing business interests - though the central bank isn't a real central bank of course.
So in summary some has been clearly in favour of business, some has clearly not, and it's always been so. I'm not sure how you categorise it as weak democracy either - it has the problems with lobbying that every form of modern democracy has, but that's not uniquely EU.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun...
Every media org has bias. This is not a negative statement in general, nor FT. It is just real.
Well informed people tend to sample from a range of perspectives.
In that sense, FT is a good value add to ones list.
So, FT supports Liberal Democrat narratives by virtue of their existence, but they definition are not bandwagon anything, they don't have to be.
It's dry and boring, which has it's merits.
Sans that perspective?
It's just as bad as any singular perspective. People end up partially informed, and that has clear impact on society.
Now, I was not going to mention political parties. That was not germane to my argument.
Since you opened the door:
FT, specifically supports neoliberal economics, which has had a sustained, and negative impact on labor. And that is a clear bandwagon.
Thus, my comment on diverse perspective. Dry and boring, frankly, is ignoring the state of the nation, and world, and that's a general disservice to a majority who inhabit it.
NOBODY in media today is above the fray. Nobody.
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.
You can attack the rich on FB, but not those so poor they receive welfare. You can attack people based on their 'privilege' but not on their immigration status.