[ggm]

I'd love to know if "the pink" has the same problem because I used to find the editorial very good. As a non-investor, left leaning voter, it interested me that I found much to agree with in "the financial times" while still finding much to disagree with in "the times" and "the daily telegraph" and "the spectator" -as if money was more neutrally stanced on left-vs-right.

[gumby]

If you’re a left leaning voter the Speccie is almost _never_ going to have an article for you.

And the “almost” is simply because often the articles are very well written and a pleasure to read even when the actual topic and argument are deeply deranged. Amazingly this was especially true when Boris was the editor!

[skrebbel]

Why is that amazing? For all his faults, Boris Johnson is an excellent writer.

[ggm]

There is an amazing write up[0] of somebody who was present when Boris gave some apparently "impromptu" speeches who absolutely pins him to the ground on his technique for appearing haphazard, off-the-cuff when it's patently clear its a rehearsed schtick. The man is literate.

The problem is he is also almost amoral, and should never have been allowed to occupy a position of authority. He has some charming qualities, and he has some deeply unpleasant ones. (at least, from what I know of him from reading online, having never met him in the flesh)

[0]: "My Boris Johnson Story" by Jeremy Vine: https://spectator.com/article/my-boris-johnson-story/

[dotancohen]

  > and should never have been allowed to occupy a position of authority. He has some charming qualities

This is quite the contradiction in a democracy. Democracies, at least in modern indirect democracy form, are popularity contests.

I personally prefer this form of government over other popular choices. But ignoring this aspect is exactly what leads to unqualified people being elected to office.

[Arkhaine_kupo]

> This is quite the contradiction in a democracy.

Is it?

I get that being charming and literally convincing voters it a prerequisite for the job. However the idea that even despite having those qualities there are parts of his character that should disqualify him as a candidate seem equally plausible.

Charles Manson was very charming, but he should still not hold office.

Similarly, Obama or Mamdani being charming is not what gained them interest in progressive circles.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

To add to this, I've read accounts that US Presidents suddenly needed to be charismatic to compete meaningfully after the debates started being televised. So even being charming had not always helped one win public office.

I recall a story about Calvin Coolidge, who had earned the nicname "Cool Cal" for his standoffish attitude, about a dinner party he attended. Another guest bet him they could get him to say three words to them by the time the party was over. He didn't say anything in response, then found them at the end of the party and said, "You lose."

[specialist]

Campaigns, for sure, are more marketing than discourse. Their infinitesimal silver lining is they serve as a veneer of social proof, their outcomes represent (to some) a form of legitimacy.

From monarchs to pure direct democracy, decisions have to be made. But how?

I see "government" as a kind of consensus algorithm. Policy work, adjudicating, record keeping, legislating, appropriations, etc. It's all just one big data processing machine, trying to discern signal from noise (information), hopefully learning stuff (knowledge), and occasionally acting.

For all our history, we've experimented with strategies for reducing transaction costs. Building trust, predictability, and stability.

How do you think we've done so far?

IMHO: Government, and especially bureaucracy, ain't great. But the alternative of no government isn't acceptable.

[dotancohen]

  > How do you think we've done so far?

Not so bad, all things considered.

[aswegs8]

https://archive.is/WGJJO

[gumby]

Every time I encounter this story I read it again because it’s so great

[ndsipa_pomu]

I agree that he should never have been given any power or responsibility, but he was bizarrely one of the best PMs we've had for promoting active infrastructure (i.e. cycle lanes). He was probably more progressive than Kid Starver.

[mdp2021]

> literate

There is form and there is content. Poor content is more dangerous with alluring form. Some declared having witnessed a bewildering scientific ignorance ("He can't understand data representations").

[gherkinnn]

What a thrilling read!

[gumby]

His ability to focus and execute has been haphazard. But as you say he is a good writer and was apparently able to force his will upon most of the writers in the stable

[modo_mario]

Is this purely because of their economic stances or did the financial times dive into social issues and idpol and maybe some of the stances where a part of the left clashes (migration and such)?

[pjc50]

The FT's market is the small remaining group of people who actively don't want to be lied to. The latter three are basically just propaganda now. James Delingpole has worked for at least two as a climate change denial correspondant.

Peter Oborne on resigning from the Telegraph, 10 years ago: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/why-i-have-resigned-from-te...

[carabiner]

Chomsky said it was the only newspaper that told the truth.

[michaelmrose]

Human beings act as if wisdom and intelligence are general whereas in reality every single area of human endeavor requires so much detail passion and time to acquire the specific knowledge and to maintain currency as the field evolves that those speaking outside their own specific scope are mostly full of shit.

[jambalaya8]

Chomsky said that a long, long time ago. The newspaper and news businesses have almost in common with their old selves now. Though I kind of think The Economist, FT and WaPo are some of the least worst news sources remaining, once in a while. Looking at old newspapers is a good way to be reminded just how opinionated and not news news from the last few decades is.

[tjwebbnorfolk]

Chomsky is a perfect example of an academic that should never have strayed outside the academy. Everything he's done outside of his narrow field of linguistics has been an embarrassment.

[attila-lendvai]

no, he also underatands the system, propaganda, manipulation pretty well... he was just on the wrong side of truth and justice.

[panick21_]

He really understands how to manipulate the situation and has founds various and fun ways to deny genocide. He is a human piece of fucking shit, who denied genocide more then once. Anybody that still hold him up as some kind of 'truth teller' has not done the proper research or is also a genocide denier.

[mdp2021]

Argument missing.

[jdhendrickson]

I wonder if he wrote that while on the island.

[317070]

I fact checked: Chomsky has never been on Epstein's island.

[ifwinterco]

Truth is reading any of these MSM sources on either left or right is bad imo.

Before reading them you're merely uninformed, after you're misinformed which is far worse

[abenga]

What should you read instead?

[ifwinterco]

I don’t think there’s any one thing or set of things you can read that will make you informed on all topics.

Human knowledge is siloed and you need to already be well-informed to judge the quality of information (this is the cause of the dunning-Kruger effect, if you’re really bad at something you lack the tools to understand just how bad you are).

So imo you have to accept you’ll always be ignorant of most topics and get comfortable with thinking “I don’t know”.

Within your own specific areas of competence you should be able to identify independent sources of information that add value and consume those while discarding the rest.

Also when it comes to politics and international affairs: no substitute for travel. Go to lots of places with different systems, talk to people and you will learn a lot more than you will from reading the economist

[duckmysick]

> So imo you have to accept you’ll always be ignorant of most topics and get comfortable with thinking “I don’t know”.

Ok but I have to (or rather - I am expected to) vote on those topics. And not just during the elections or referendums, but also figuratively with my wallet and attention. In other words, my actions will be driven by how (mis)informed I am.

And even though I am comfortable with being ignorant, from my experience other people aren't comfortable with me being ignorant. Saying "I don't know, I haven't thought about it" is often met with shock if not anger. I don't have the luxury of dropping those people from my life either.

As for the travel, the perspective of a tourist is different from a person who lives there even for a few months, much less a few years. I agree it beats reading third-party summaries, but I don't think it gives you a much better clarity.

[dwaltrip]

> Saying "I don't know, I haven't thought about it" is often met with shock if not anger. I don't have the luxury of dropping those people from my life either.

There's a softer middle ground. You could try to deflect or say that you'd rather not talk about it.

And honestly, it would be a pretty big issue for me if someone in my life got angry at me for saying "I don't know" or "I'm not sure".

Maybe it's the "I haven't thought about it part" that is triggering them? It sounds like you have thought about a lot of these things.. it's just that they are genuinely difficult in many cases.

But I hear you. I've had similar thoughts and struggle with it as well.

P.S. Btw, here's a big one: Finding common ground by agreeing on certain core facts or values is usually very appreciated. This alone can dissolve the tension much of the time, especially when done with humility and grace.

[ifwinterco]

Yes in theory it should be easier to get on with people if you yourself don’t hold many strong opinions.

Unless of course you’re dealing with a zealot who gets angry if you do anything other than passionately agree with them, but there’s not much you can do in that case anyway

[SanjayMehta]

Yes.

The pink is also wrong more often than not when they're talking about non-European issues.

When they talk about Europe they lie.

Subtle difference.

[ggm]

The view amongst the economically literate left (the LSE?) when I was in the UK, was that lying about money to money-makers was counter productive.

I tend to think this is true. The economist doesn't project into quite the same mindset of outcome, so I still think (despite your polemic) it's less likely the fin randomly lies about things, but I'm prepared to consider it on it's merits if somebody gives me better reasons than what I am afraid is just .. ranting.

[ahartmetz]

Chomsky makes the same point in his book "Manufacturing Consent": Economic papers report more truthfully than most because the truth is what their readers need to make decisions in the real world.

I find that pretty convincing and I do check out such papers occasionally for that reason.

[eru]

It's somewhat funny that the rest of Chomsky's ideology doesn't seem to really take that insight serious.

[seanmcdirmid]

Just look at how wrong Chomsky was about his core subject with the rise of LLMs. He basically invented a whole field that turned out to be a very wrong direction.

[eru]

Yes, though I wouldn't hold it (too much) against him when he was young and the field was even younger. In the 1950s and 1960s and even later, it wasn't clear that LLMs would eventually win at all yet alone win so hard. And Chomsky's early work is genuinely useful. It's just that it's useful formal languages, like programming languages, and has only limited applicability to natural human languages.

[ahartmetz]

I'm not aware of any obvious contradictions tbh. What do you mean?

[spikels]

Today both "newspapers" lie about everything. Sad.