How the Financial Times Won the Newspaper Wars
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июн 2024
- Sign up for NordVPN and get an EXTRA 4 months using our link: www.NordVPN.com/TLDR
With print journalism in decline, many newspapers are struggling to convert their readership into online subscriptions. The FT is the exception and is now considered the most trusted media outlet in the UK. So how did they stage this digital coup?
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
🗣 Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
////////////////////////////
1 - openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/epri...
2 - pressgazette.co.uk/media-audi...
3 - pressgazette.co.uk/news/news-...
4 - www.gale.com/binaries/content...
5 - www.journalism.co.uk/news/how...
6 - aboutus.ft.com/press_release/...
7 - www.ftstrategies.com/en-gb/in...
8 - reutersinstitute.politics.ox....
9 - www.ftstrategies.com/en-gb/in...
10 - jburnmurdoch/stat...
00:00 Introduction
01:00 Disclaimer
01:18 Context
03:13 Print Circulation
06:13 Online Subscriptions Model
07:18 Revenue Streams
08:46 Credibility & Reputation
09:39 Why the FT is Winning
10:51 Nord VPN
CLARIFICATION: At 4:16, we use the term "Southern Ireland". This is a direct quote from a press release published by News UK, which owns Newsprinters, the company responsible for distributing newspapers in the UK). The article can be found here: www.news.co.uk/latest-news/off-the-press-on-the-road-and-through-the-door/, and the relevant quote reads:
"By 06.30 every morning it has delivered 4 million newspapers to 55,000 retail outlets in the UK and Southern Ireland and directly to more than 16,000 homes in London."
We're not sure if they're referring to the Republic of Ireland or some southern part of Ireland like Munster, but if they are referring to the Republic of Ireland, we'd just like to say that we obviously don't agree with that terminology.
Nonetheless, we should've checked before using that term, so our bad and apologies there.
Why does a UK channel hate its own country and kowtow to Ireland's delusions?
spastic unionist@@newagetapes
@@newagetapes The UK is pretty hateable, ya know after all the genocides it's responsible for, including Irelands
@@newagetapeswell the Republic of Ireland is a country not just “Southern Ireland” it’s just correct to not call it that
If it’s a direct quote, it’s more responsible to read it as is, rather then changing it, knowing exactly what someone has said is important, although it might has been wiser to establish you were quoting someone
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Didn't you read the Financial Times this morning?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Never do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, you're a banker. Surely you read the Financial Times?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Can't understand it. Full of economic theory.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Why do you buy it?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Oh, you know, it's part of the uniform.
Where is this from? A tv show?
@@diegoyuiop Yes, from "Yes, Minister".
That Milton Keynes...
@@AhaanM Ah yes, terrible person. Just like Milton Schulman the monetarist.
Good thing they clarify the disclaimer
Legally Required to but they where very open about it
Yeah now we can trust their un bias report
@@DarthAwarunder Uk law?
Nothing required under uk law this was optional
Even then they come out as very bias by excluding key statistics about Guardian and Economist. Also labeling Guardian as a tabloid is a huge disservice to what it has exposed and done in the past 15 years
It’s the best honestly. too business oriented perhaps but extremely high quality coverage relative to all the other papers.
As other business oriented are also a rare case of something being deemed more or less credible all over political spectrum, I'm not sure whether that's really bug or a feature...
Endorsing the great Tory government that have such great economic credentials
TO BE FAIR, Financial Times is the only major newspaper who are business orientated. All the other major papers are more "gossip" base.
They got no competitions.
@@windwaker0rules ah they’ve endorsed Labour plenty of times. 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005 I’m fairly certain in 2019 they gave a general endorsement for liberal candidates and they almost certainly will endorse them in 2024 based on their coverage as of late.
@@PeterFlanagan0987 They endorsed Labor when it went neo liberal and was "neutral" when it came to a man pushing for a hard brexit.
Tell me on which rational economic metric can you be neutral on which side has the better economic policy when Boris basically said "i am going to make the economy worse on purpose".
I key aspect about this is its content. Other paper might be already outdated by the time their printed but the issues cover by ft are not subject to such a fast news cycle so the paper version is still relevant on the evening the next day while other stories have developed so much that the physical media is pointless by that time
So, don't focus on being first, focus on being right.
May not gain the highest market share, but you'll last a lot longer than the sensationalist trash.
The FT is worth every penny IMO.
I'd encourage people to escape clickbait & social media grifters by PAYING for their news (not necessarily FT, any news org of their choice). People are becoming increasingly under-informed or mis-informed, public awareness and discourse on important matters is in the gutter.
My preferred newspaper where I live still engages in click bait style articles from time to time and the alternatives are worse.
Don't buy the FT overpriced drivel and their clickbait RUclips channel sucks.
Quality journalism costs money.
Being a student, forking out for these sorts of things are difficult. I get an unbiased outlook (at least I hope) by reading a range of different sources that would be considered to be on all sides of the 'spectrum'. What is encouraging is that AP and Reuters both have free to use apps with advertising.
Hope that's helpful!
I do not think it's right for news to become pay walled. Poorer people are more likely to get a false narrative.. Governments should continue to fund public radio and TV stations
I like what I've read in the FT, but no way I'm paying £40 a month for it 😮
It’s about the same price of buying the paper daily
Weekend only is £49 a quarter so 12.25 a month.
If you get yourelf on the mailing list (or call customer support) they send discounted subscriptions to you, but it's still not cheap. I guess you get the quality that you pay for.
In case any of you have Revolut, I think one of their premium plans included access to FT for free (so you just pay for Rebuilt, which was a lot cheaper)
There's way to read it without paying but I'm not sure it's legal
As a person living in the Far East since birth, I have started to view FT as the most meaningful newspaper since I ran into the Yes Minister series and that nice newspaper joke (“… FT is read by people who own the country…”). Mainly because I assume it affects decision-making of politicians and financiers behind politicians more than any other papers... But it’s expensive as hell…
Reminded me of this episode:
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Didn't you read the Financial Times this morning?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Never do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Well, you're a banker. Surely you read the Financial Times?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Can't understand it. Full of economic theory.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Why do you buy it?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Oh, you know, it's part of the uniform.
ruclips.net/video/KgUemV4brDU/видео.htmlsi=VABDA9KDj0gy1Y6b
Great show, great scene
It’s quite unbelievable to see that that statement has literally stayed true even though we saw the rise of internet, AI and what not over the years.
The Economist is also pretty great, for most of the same reasons. Their data vis and analysis in particular is something I quite like.
I got both FT & The Economist through my uni and I'll be forever thankful to them. Both are great and keep me well informed.
It's similar to what happens in my home country. When reading the news I prefer the business oriented outlet, because it's ... real news! The headlines are on the spot, no missing context, mentions all sides and attempts to be impartial.
One of the things I like about financial news sources is that they're often quite balanced and pragmatic. Because their main aim is to dispassionately analyze _"How will this affect markets?"_ rather than taking a moral stance.
Yes, but that's also a problematic position as they're focused on what's good for markets and maintaining the status quo / neoliberal economics.
As most also do that as well as perpetuate whatever other narratives, FT is better / less crap.
@@ChrispyNut The goal of the FT is to inform people who are active in the financial sector to make well informed decisions. Not to convince people to change their ideological stance.
@@timo3724 Where did I say they tried to do that?
@@timo3724 the problem comes when a critical issue is caused by the prevailing ideological stance. A paper that is geared towards upholding the status quo won't be able to report on it objectively
@@ChrispyNut When you say that they are focused on maintaining the status quo.
I think you missed the most important reason for success of FT in this modern format of news serving i.e over Internet .
DEMOGRAPHICS in my opinion is the most important one as FT is seen as a newspaper doing serious journalism and reporting on business and economic issues in great detail ,It hence attracts readers who are willing to pay for such content as they see value in it and due to this demographics and business niche they are easily able to convert their readers to paid subscribers and charge high prices for the service .
On the other hand this is not the case for those tabloids because they are targeted towards casual readers who are not there for rigorous business coverage but instead for sensationalized breaking news and spectacle of sports and entertainment media .
I think this is it. What the tabloids offer is more easily replaced by free online content because there isn't that much to it in the first place. There is no shortcut to the kind of stuff the FT does though. The kind of audience who was willing to pay for it in print is not going to be served as well with free online news, so they will still pay for it.
As well as that, I'd expect a lot of it is buoyed by corporate subscribers. Any company working in the likes of banking or finance is going to have today's copy of the FT in their lobby because it confers sophistication and prestige.
Agree. I think he partly addressed that with the company subscriptions.
I’m interested in the comparison with for example the Guardian, which is also very serious journalism and they seem to have a different financing strategy
Paywalls for online newspapers are so frustrating. This model enables sites to be at the top of searches without providing anything of value. There are bowser extensions and sites that help you get around them, but it’s such a hassle. I wonder why subscription models have not worked for search and video content sites, while that is the overwhelming choice for online newspapers.
Where the FT beats the Economist is that it allows comments. These commentaries tend to be intelligent additions to articles except when dealing with contentious geopolitical issues. You not only get to read the FT articles you get to read counter-arguments from the comments page.
It's worth browsing the FT site frequently and even registering online - at some point you'll get a cut price annual sub offer. Not dirt cheap offer like say the NYT or Telegraph, but at least affordable (with a bit of rationalising) if you think the FT's content is useful
I sooooo wish I could afford the Financial Times, it's always the one if you see one of their free articles online you think "wow, that is amazingly well written... I want more"
It is the only paper that does news worth a shit anymore
Southern Ireland only existed for 18 months in 1921/22. The name of the modern country is Ireland. If you need to distinguish it from Northern Ireland using the Republic of Ireland is fine. But Southern Ireland is a uniquely English way of doing it and is incorrect.
I used to deliver newspapers and we had about 5 different brands. Even back in 2011, FT was noticeably higher quality information.
Since then, every other brand has had a race to the lowest quality
I love how you explained from the very basics, like the division of UK newspapers intro tabloids and sheets!
I have found the FT to be top quality journalism, nothing that is trivial or reality TV sillyness. And yes they do appear to just report facts not opinions, unlike most other useless newspapers
bot
I live in the Boston (US) area and I have had a digital subscription to the FT for several years and a print subscription for the FT Weekend Edition for the last 2 years. It is a bit pricey but I think it gives me a much more balanced overview of the global news than its US competitors (e.g. New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal) which are more politically biased and too focused on the US. The Week End edition has weekly interviews of very interesting people from politics, literature, films, etc.
I live in the midwest and I like Wall Street Journal better than the financial times. I don't think Europeans really have as good of a grasp of US issues as they might like to think they do.
Why is there no mention of The Guardian? In some of the chart they seem to be doing just as well as FT if not better, and they are still totally ignored... 6:07
More confusing is the fact that they are being categorized with Tabloids like Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express, considering all the hardcore investigative journalism Guardian is known for
I'd love a lower tier option because the FT is nice and all, but what I see is 38 euro a month for digital only and without their FT Weekend edition - this is expensive for news. Great quality and all but too much for me. There would have to be a lot more for me to pay this much monthly.
You can use an extension to read it without a subscription. Not saying I'm encouraging you to do so, but it's a possibility
FT and Economist are my faves. True journalism right there
You guys should start adding y-axes to your graphs so we can tell how significant certain changes are. The Daily Express would be in a much worse situation relative to FT if its YoY newspaper circulation decline was 25% than if it was 0.25%, but without a reference point we can't tell how bad it is (5:42). Graphs have a lot more meaning when you can see the magnitude of things.
I would imagine that the high circulation likely has a large correlation with the paper likely having an older reader base
It would be interesting to do more of these investigations: Examining the business models of old media as they attempt to become profitable. The GMG was particularly invested in the online space with no paywall - how it became profitable/sustainable has been interesting. Interestingly The Sun in the UK scores lower levels of trust that Infowars in the US @9:13
There are obviously other reasons than just content that explain the FT's success, but I'm glad to hear content still gets rewarded by the readership at a time of rapid news cycle.
In short: FT always chose journalism above bs.
Interestingly inconsistent treatment of the guardian, both the classification as a tabloid (even ifnits format lines up to that) and the fact that whilst having one of the largest online presence (as per the graph) its not part of the circulation graph
4:50 Japanese Nikkei owned
5:45 Causes of growth
Best advertisement I've seen in a while, well done everyone
Normal sentence case would be better for the disclaimer rather than all caps. Its really hard to read/follow that much text in a block when its all uppercase
Wait, you mean to say that even just attempting to report impartial and factual actually makes people trust a news company?
Whaaaat?! How can that be? Don't people positively CRAVE to be lied to?
Honestly, I know jack shit about the FT. But I couldn't help, but chuckle during this video every time it was hinted at people trusting the paper. Good on them to be worth it.
People don't care about truth or lies, they like what is conforms to their existing positions
@@richardhands904If you add the word 'dumb' in front of your people, I'll agree.
@@mikestone6078 smart or dumb, don't think smart people are immune. Even smart people can end up in cults.
@@richardhands904Nobody calls them immune. But smart people are usually more interested in facts, even if they don't fit what they wish. Dumb people are scientifically proven to put less importance on facts, especially if they don't fit their ideas.
Are all people like that? Obviously not. Is that important for a cheeky comment like mine? Most certainly also not.
The paper of the people who own the country!
Jokes aside though, FT Films on their RUclips channel are fantastic.
Very impressive! So basically, the Financial Times used a combination of good management and policies, and actual journalism and merit to succeed? Plis, i am absolutely surprised to see one western newspaper that doesn't focis on toxic identity politics and actually focuses on reporting real and relevant news! Kudos to FT👍
Wait, what, how is the Guardian a tabloid!?
In what world is the Guardian a tabloid & not a broadsheet unlike Telegraph & Times?
i liked the video just because i liked the disclaimer at the beginning
I was introduced to the FT as it tried to expand to Germany with the German "FTD", FT Deutschland. At some point in time, the best columnists from the FTD switched to FT. These folks write incredibly insightful, critical stuff. And Martin Wolf in many ways is a s leading economic thinker, because he considers hard economics as well as political realities and brings this across in his columns fantastically. That's why he is a sought after moderator on many events, such as those organized by INET in the 2010s.
The other main justification to subscribe to the FT is that it has a global perspective. No German Newspaper offers this. With the FT I think I am decently informed about events in Asia, US South America etc. and that is important to understand the world.
I haven't yet found another newspaper that offers this. Maybe the NYT (which I just didn't enjoy).
The content and its online offering is head and shoulders above any other British media outlet. I'm not surprised it is bucking industry trends.
Financial Times is shilling less. Also note to self: invest in Nikkei.
I like FT but no way I would read it if my company didnt pay for it.
What about the Guardian?...isn't it a news publisher....?
I think the investment and data collection by FT's owner Nikkei, is considerably important too
your own paper was so good! Interesting but also fun!
Another successful example is the NYT in the usa, also i think what helps the Financial Times is that they reader base are probably high income people compared to someone that buys the sun for example.
If quality is there or if the papers offer something some don´t they will be succeful but unfortunately most report on the same histories at least in my country, journalism is dying here.
They may be financially viable, though they are considered as credible only among their hardcore fanbase.
Most of your graphs exclude The Guardian. One of them is repeated many times. And at 6:12 where you do in clude The Guardian, you say that the FT online following dwarfs that of other British newspapers except for The Economist (which isn't a Newspaper), when The Guardian sits on the very same graph ("Following on Instagram") you show on the screen with almost double the FT's following. Wow! Then you class The Guardian content as "free to read" as though it's a crime rather than an effort to include everybody, and "mostly churned out". Wow, again!!
I find it hard to believe this video is not TLDR News desperately begging for the FT's attention. It skips over so many apparent and important points, like the ones you mentioned, in pursuit of the "the FT is the best newspaper ever" narrative. The FT is a solid newspaper, which is why I don't understand why they don't just let the facts and the context of the UK and global media landscape speak for itself? Instead they are desperately trying to skew the facts to make it stand out as a messiah in an armageddon which consists of every single other news outlet in the world, apparently, and they do this so egregiously that it's embarrassing for both TLDR and the FT.
Agree, and they class it as a tabloid. I would have thought it was considered a broadsheet.
If your target market is the people who are making money, the key is giving insight and objectivity, which is novelty in this time and age.
they're ahead not but too long will one day catch up
0:30 It’s _Too Long_ right? _Too Long_ won?
Great paper! Also written well!
But way too expensive!
As Prof. Mark Blythe said of FT being the only news he consistently reads; you can't fool the global investor class for very long before you fold. (Paraphrased)
Love my digital FT subscription, it is worth every penny!
The Telegraph is still a better paper
1:27 would you really call The Guardian or The Independent tabloids?
No idea on the merits of FT but I stopped reading the independent and guardian during the Corbyn years. I would've assumed to counter balance the hit pieces from right wing papers but in stead they leaned in. Regardless of political leanings, I want my media landscape to be diverse and fair to all sides.
I'd say public broadcasting was a lot better about a decade ago, but that could be entirely subjective. French and German public broadcasting is better for sure (imo).
The Economist may be losing readership in terms of physical copy sales I'm sure that can't be the case for online content. I personally pay for access to their podcast service, which includes a series where they read out the actual newspaper version of The Economist, and it has so far been worth the money in everyway. While I haven't engaged with the FT much at all The Economist is my go to for news and I would happily continue to pay for it
You get a like for that disclaimer
My university gives us a free FT subscription,might be something there
I guess it makes sense the business newpaper is good at business.
It's the best one! I don't even read it for financial news, it's just so trustworthy compared to anything else
bot
@@windwaker0rules just because someone doesn't share your same view, it doesn't not mean that is a bot
@@diegoyuiop yeah but talking like someone who is talking exactly like an advertising comment with no profile pic and and no videos sure does sound like an advertising bot.
Theres like a 80% chance you are someone who works for the FT and goes to various videos and says "wow what a great article, keep it up guys"
@@windwaker0rules I'll leave you with the doubt then...
@@windwaker0ruleswho the hell has videos on their account except those who want to be youtubers?
I like it because it is the only truly international newspaper, all others show the world through the lens of their country of origin.
Since when was the Guardian a tabloid?
It changed to a tabloid format in 2018
It's not a tabloid. The newspaper format used by the Guardian is called the Berliner.
Used to be somewhat factual but now their articles are sensational and opinionated, closer to a tabloid than an actual news source
For practical purposes? From maybe a decade I'd have problems to consider it as anything serious. Though I'm not sure whether in this particular case calling it "a meme" would be more suitable, as its more ridiculous articles headlines end as memes.
Ever since the SS smashed up their hard drives they have been state controlled media ever since.
If other media (tv, radio) talking about papers e.g. XYZ article in the Times... Is the only thing keeping them relevant. If this aura of 'what the papers say...' was removed it would be a big help for our democracy
I love the FT
I don’t think people really understand the value of money until they have to pay for their own rent, utilities, furniture, car and everything else with money they have earned.
I earned money as a kid doing yard work and had jobs since I was old enough to work, but the money I earned was all extra. I didn’t understand how fast money vanishes when most of it goes to simply existing.
How could the Independent have suffered a fall in print circulation last year when it hasn't published a print edition since 2016?
Not really sure why you botter puting graphs in you videos if you're not adding a X/Y axis or, at least, the raw number in the bars themselves.
because they worked at the financial times
TLDR next upcoming trustworthy media outlet. Especially with disclaimers like that.
I guess it's coz they're just really good at business. But for me the biggest factor imo is the diversification of income. If I was on their board, I'd argue for more diversification. Have 10 other business, have them all more or less integrated. Why isn't there a FT news channel to challenge BBC? Why is there no FT radio station? Why no FT hotel for business travellers? Why no FT executive taxi company? Why no FT university in collaboration with Cambridge or Oxford... So many different opportunities out there.
Another good potential business for them would be to setup a FT brokerage firm and a FT ETF. 😎👍🏽
If FT implements any of these ideas, I'd like 1 million pounds and 1% stake in each business idea they "borrowed".
4:17 Did you just call Ireland "southern Ireland"? Like we're a province?
I believe this was "some in ireland"
@@derrfes It was Southern Ireland
It costs 70$ per month....
Seems very strange to me to class the Guardian, The Independent, and the Times as tabloids. If the Telegraph is a broadsheet then so are these.
IF I AM A BUSINESSMAN I don't want to read BS. I need to know the correct information to run my business... NOT the Daily Mail's spin on things - often from another planet to ours.
I got the FT free during my masters, and now have it free through work and it is easily the best media source I have. Before that I had to use Reddit as a catch-all to cherry pick from multiple papers.
No major political bias; just logic and pragmatic analysis. If a policy is poor, they’ll say so, whilst also explaining why it exists even though it’s poor.
Just such a good example of how to criticise shitty governance (which we have had a lot of lately) without looking partisan, so you aren’t just auto-dismissed as being on the other side of the aisle.
Honestly, rage-bait AI-assisted news is not enjoyable to read; and people are slowly getting sick of it even it does confirm their biases. If more papers were like the FT, we’d probably have avoided populism altogether.
Place your bets, who at TLDR previously worked for FT:
I’d switch to FT in a heartbeat but their subscription is just too expensive, so it’s WSJ for now lol
4:16 - by "Southern Ireland", are you referring to Munster? If not, then use the terms "Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland". The term "Southern Ireland" has very specific political connotations and should be avoided.
Irish guy here, genuinely don’t care
As someone from N. Ireland. Using Ireland to mean ROI is must more incorrect as it, just implyes N. Ireland does not exist.
Like saying England when meaning UK.
North and south are general used to refer to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, accross the island of Ireland.
Ironically I think FT is the best when it comes to investigative and political reporting and not finance. I work in the industry and their financial content is fine but pretty mediocre; its slow, doesn't really go into that much depth, and often is a second/third-hand take to things that others have reported. The investigative work and their interviews are absolutely top notch though
Skip da ad 12:32
I would pay for the FT if I had a better reason than idle fascination about the cliffs the world is rushing towards: demographic, agricultural, environmental, economic cliffs all looming in the 2030s. It's definitely the news outlet that I most trust.
I really like this content but why do the studio shots look like they’re in a cloud or the lens is covered in vaseline?! All the clarity and colour is washed out compared to the B-roll or stock footage.
Guardian in the tabloids? Come on guys?
Lemme guess sponsored by the financial times?
The fact that the Labour and Tories have the same opinion about a full economical & capitalist tabloid shows why they are not different ideologies, only different strategies.
Although, The Guardian has recently adopted a more tabloid-esque format to save costs, I wouldn't lump it with the likes of The Sun and The Mail.
NYT has over 9.4 million subscribers. The Guardian has 1.1 subscribers. This is obviously a UK centric piece and not even that well done. And I much prefer The Economist to the FT as well because those papers have a soul and a moral compass. Seems like you all may have been paid to highlight them to your audience.
Quite simply, people who can afford to buy the FT are interested in facts, not political hackery.
Not sure why you classified The Guardian as a taboid. It is anything but that.
I read British newspapers for American news. It's like going to a 3rd party marriage counselor and not my wife's sister for marriage problems because an outside look is almost always the most objective view.
If the economist was cheaper id subscribe
That's a rare piece of great news because FT is one of the few remaining outlets producing quality content, devoid of ideology. The pieces published there are well researched and thoughtful, one can read them regardless of one's own opinions, they do not pander to either side whether it's left/right or any of the schools of thought in economics.
Technical comment: the audio compressor is working over time. It’s a little unpleasant and off putting to listen to.
#DontBuyTheSun
At that price it’s obviously for those small, elite constituencies in Western electorates who governments don’t feel they need to bombard with lies to try to influence elections. The expensive paywall is a nod and a wink to the Western Establishment(s), which says ‘here factual, accurate reporting is permissible’. The Guardian often infuriates me but I still value it very much. (I’m sure I’d enjoy the privilege of reading the FT too.)
Sorry I'm not paying for news and opinion. Let advertisers do that.
This is a thinly veiled ad for the FT, but it sadly lacks in journalistic rigour and critical reflection. Starting with the thumbnail that portrays the New York Times as "burning" while it is more or less the only US newspaper that has figured out online subscriptions, and they did it very early on in comparison to other global news outlets, while being very profitable.
Second, the portrayal of the UK media landscape is severly lacking, not just in terms of contextualization (the daily newspapers, contrary to television, are allowed to be partial, and most of them heavily skew right, which makes it pretty easy to stand out as "neutral" if your newspaper focuses on business and international news and more or less stays out of domestic news; you wouldn't compare GB News with Bloomberg TV either), but also by solely categorizing newspapers by format. Size isn't everything, and lumping "The Times" and "The Guardian" together with sensationalist hate propaganda boulevard newspapers is ingenuous.
Third, the Guardian in particular is either left out of the graphs that are shown completely, or even in case of it being included, it is ignored to make the FT look better (for example when the online presence of the FT is being praised as successful while both "The Economist" and "The Guardian" have significantly better numbers, the former is disregarded and the latter ignored completely.
Last, but not least, praising the FT for holding conferences and having multiple fact-checking and editing rounds is laughable at best because it's that's what every serious newspaper worldwide is doing. If there's one newspaper that has figured out different income streams, it's the NYT with having multiple separate online subscriptions and owning a bunch of other news outlets. And while the FT "diverse income streams" are praised, like running a media consultancy (conflict of interest, anyone?), it is indirectly implied that they have four side businesses at 15% each, which is untrue.
Anyways, this video has reminded me of why I stopped watching tldr news some time ago. At first, I was willing to tolerate the occasional error and the sometimes lacking depth in reporting (that usually had to be offset by people in the comments who knew more about the subject) because tldr was a young and small media outlet that, as I hoped, would mature along the way. But it seems TLDR has just institutionalized a culture of shallowness in pursuit of profit, which is very disappointing because I had high hopes.
A comment on the video style, I would much prefer to have fewer but more relevant video clips. An interesting graph quickly replaced by two irrelevant stock clips is sad to see.