We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Watching the press take sides in the poll Guido Fawkes wryly notes that the Financial Times, which for a long time has backed Labour in its editorial pages, and for a long time taken a ploddingly, predictably, wrong-headed stance on many issues (such as joining the euro), has now come out for the Tories.
Of course, the FT, like the Economist – which has also backed Cameron – is a purveyor of conventional wisdom, so it may be that a centrist, social democratic paper like the FT feels fairly comfortable in backing a party that has not shown any considerably conservative political views. But as Guido says, there may be another reason in that the FT has seen some of its readers die off or defect to other, more robustly pro-market, publications. If the latter is the case, then that is an admirable lesson to be learnt: if you want to see how a product has to change in the face of consumer trends, look at the business media.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Or could there be another explanation for the business media’s late conversion to the wonders of Lil’ Dave-dom? Access.
Once the business media gets the idea that Cameron might “win” (defined in the UK as getting a minority of votes cast), then it begins to be important to certain people to get on the right side of the Cameroons. Hence the late endorsement, but still letting the FT claim that it endorsed Lil’Dave.
If this is the explanation, then the situation is even worse. The business media has effectively become an internal organ of the expanding state, ready to trade anything for “access” to the Powers That Be.
It is just getting with strongest horse. Nothing more. FT et al go with blowing wind.
So is Dayvow going to win big on election day? And how long before the press turn against him? Any bets?
(Odyssey in the U.K.)
John Ivison of National Post has returned to UK to write a series on the changes since he left.
I take the former of J.P.s alternative explinations.
The Financial Times (like the Economist – its sister publication) support Cameron BECAUSE HE IS NO GOOD.
As for circulation fears.
Does the F.T. really care about circulation?
After all it (unlike the Wall Street Journal – which is the number one selling newspaper in the United States) does not seem too bothered that it does not sell very many copies in its home market.
The F.T. sells about 70 thousand copies in Britain (by comparison the Sun newspaper sells over three MILLION copies – and not all Sun readers are poor).
Of course the FT claims to sell hundreds of thousands of copies overseas – but it might as well say “zillions” as overseas circulation numbers are easy to rig.
As for the business media:
They are good on internal company news (how this company is well managed – or that company is badly managed).
But CNBC, Bloomberg and the rest either treat government as if it did not exist – or (even more demented) treat it as if it were generally a force for good (for example when Charlie Rose says “Barney Frank should investigate this” he is not being ironic about the corrupt collectivist scumbag).
Either the “business media” are ideological statists – or they are scared about what the government will do to them if they are critical.
“Fox Business” may be different – but it is a station I have never seen.
“If you provider is not offering Fox Business DEMAND IT”.
Try telling that to Sky, Mr Cavuto – after all Sky is supposed to be part of the same News International company that you are, but they act as if they are the bitter enemies of Fox News and Fox Business.