It's concerning that FT don't take more of an econs-of-AI-investment angle, explored here
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45399893
(Maybe Doctorow has too much of a Guardian vibe, compared to Zitron?)
The Economist would argue that the investor is always right, so maybe that's too hard of a line for FT to press
The FT recently did a series on 'The AI race', which they described as 'A three-part series exploring the quest for AI capacity and the data centres at the heart of hundreds of billions of dollars in capital investment'
- ‘Absolutely immense’: the companies on the hook for the $3tn AI building boom [1][2]
- Inside the AI race: can data centres ever truly be green? [3][4]
- Inside the relentless race for AI capacity [5]
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/efe1e350-62c6-4aa0-a833-f6da01265...
[2] https://archive.ph/sn3lT
[3] https://www.ft.com/content/0f6111a8-0249-4a28-aef4-1854fc8b4...
[4] https://archive.ph/10tca
[5] https://ig.ft.com/ai-data-centres/
I've said this many times but I'll say it again. The FT is not some single opinion org. It has many writers and many editors of various opinions. The FT itself does not take any angle, only it's writers and editors, who can have contradictory views and still publish articles in the same media org.
To add color to your opinion: this piece was written by one of the financial editors
https://www.ft.com/tabby-kinder
No "unified opinion" but an editorial stance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Times#Editorial_stan...
you want to open a wikipedia debate on that :)?
If I were you I'd point to the FT [Weekend] Magazine marquee instead
What are the chances of reading an FT article stating that the financial sector, and financialization, are creating some of society’s core problems?
They do occasionally, with reservation. Though obviously pro-finance they also don’t want total financial collapse.
> FT is not one single opinion
This holds for most newspapers and makes that whole fake news argument so infuriating. As if journalists had even 15 minutes in a day to coordinate how to present an issue.
Journalists don't have to spend 15 minutes to coordinate how to present an issue. The phenomenon has been described as journalists writing for other journalists as their audience, rather than the general public. It's about sending a signal that you're part of the in-group.
Newspapers employ journalists that write only within certain range of opinions. I am not saying it is evil or something, but there is absolutely selection of which opinions can be show and which cant.