Sanam Vakil in the FT on Iran

The Belgravia Dipatch writes:

THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH: Vakil Trumps Pletka: Underwhelmed by Danielle Pletka's boiler-plate, cliched op-ed piece in today's NYT? Have no fear! The FT--which incidentally, and for my money, produces significantly higher quality opinion journalism in its pages, day in; day out, than the New York Times--has a much more, er, nuanced Iran analysis from Sanam Vakil...:

The emergence of a reformist movement... forced the clerical elite... to acknowledge the link between demography and democracy. With 70 per cent of the population under the age of 30 and with no memory of the revolution or its nationalising ideology, the government recognised that it was sitting on a ticking time bomb. Mr Rafsanjani's re-emergence signifies an essential and often overlooked change... a weakening in the position of the rahbar or supreme leader.... Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, did not want Mr Rafsanjani to re-enter the political scene....

As a born-again pragmatist, Mr Rafsanjani has abandoned his revolutionary ideals for national-interest oriented objectives. Potential rapprochement with the US - an anathema for many traditional revolutionary adherents... is an idea Mr Rafsanjani has flirted with for years and is now one of the main pillars of his campaign. Increased economic liberalisation is another policy issue that reveals the ideological divide between Mr Rafsanjani and the clerical apparatchiks. Both of these issues are not only on his agenda but critical for gaining mass popular support.

It is not just in opinion journalism that the Financial Times outstrips the New York Times: the first is simply a much, much better newspaper.

Comments

[Robert Waldmann]

Alo you like the FT because of its left of center slant. I am not joking. The title and the funny colored paper don't, in the end, prevent progressivism

[bakho]

Yeah, and FT interviews the Big Dog who once again demostrates that it is indeed possible to have a president that understands economics:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/50864538-e0fe-11d9-a3fb-00000e2511c8.html

Whenever I get too depressed about Bush, I go back and read Clinton.

[bakho]

Yeah, and FT interviews the Big Dog who once again demostrates that it is indeed possible to have a president that understands economics:

news.ft.com/cms/s/50864538-e0fe-11d9-a3fb-00000e2511c8.html

Whenever I get too depressed about Bush, I go back and read Clinton.

[otto]

"It is not just in opinion journalism that the Financial Times outstrips the New York Times: the first is simply a much, much better newspaper."

Absolutely.

Martin Wolf versus Thomas Friedman: no contest. Even though they agree on many things, MW is consistently interesting and informed, TF talks drivel.

FT weaknesses:
1.Lack of any (not one!) Conservative-leaning UK columnists on the op-ed page. There's more Conservative-leaning commentary in the Guardian.
2. A persistent weakness for Brussels establishment views of Europe, even when wildly implausible. You wouldn't know why anyone would object to anything the EU proposed if you just read the FT.

One other thing: The FT weekend is a joy: Recent Articles on Smith College and Transgendered Students, and How Michelin Starred Restaurants in Germany are Closing Down, were both fun and informative.

[Urinated State of America]

"FT weaknesses:
1.Lack of any (not one!) Conservative-leaning UK columnists on the op-ed page. There's more Conservative-leaning commentary in the Guardian."

That's a feature, not a bug. However, onemight think they could replace the awful Amity Schales (sp?), who's columns are basically xeroxes of Cato and GOP talking points, with another good conservative columnist. Like getting Chris Caldwell to write two columns a week instead of just one.

[msf]

How much hard-core journalism does FT do? How many reporters in Iraq, Afghanistan, DC, Moscow, etc? How many inches of hard news does FT generate? Opinion is **** - news is a different story - it is not ****.

[Saudi Albertan]

Hear, hear!

Brad is absolutely right. I read both the NYT and FT daily, and the FT blows NYT out of the water.

Commentary is better (Krugman notwithstanding). News coverage is more objective and better (i.e., Judith Miller would not last at the FT). Broader perspective, including way better Iraq and ME repoting. Excellent weekend section, which a reasonable person actually has time to read. The NYT seems to prefer the Stalinist "quantity has a quality all its own" approach on the weekend.

The NYT may be better than most US papers and media outlets, but being less sycophantic than average should not be a distinguishing characteristic. NYT management should spend less time reading McKinsey case studies about Rupert Murdoch's strategies and more time reading the FT.

Saudi Albertan

[niner]

The quality of the NYT has fallen consistently and substantially over the last 10 years such that its value has found a match to its online price. Its necessary to glance through the headlines, to see "what's happening" and to cherry-pick interesting columns at will, but as a source of news its objectivity, coverage and writing have mercilessly converged with the remainder of American journalilsm.

The FT is an unquestionably superior paper in nearly every aspect quite possibly including coverage of US news. It is probably the last remaining general news source in the world that does not feel the need to write about Michael Jackson, or other silly non-news items. (In the last six months the FT has had 3 stories explicitly about the Jackson trial 1 of which was an op-ed, whereas the NYT had easily over 100). The difference is the simple excercise of the lost art of editing. That is making choices about what is "news" and what is not. Justifications based on "But other people are covering it" is simply the excuses of two-year olds worn by adults.

The reason I pay a now PPP-adjusted $1.50 (will they go back to $1 when the Euro crashes?) is precisely for the service of an editor who is informative and whom I respect to make these sorts of choices. Rest assured, should I find myself nervously pondering the end of civilization and its relevance to current celebrity murder trial, a simple glane through the homepage of the NYT, WaPo will reassure me that the swift and balanced hand of American justice cuts a sure swath through the criminality of the modern celebrity.

Before I touch upon the issue of op-edcolumnists, I have to ask MSF to repeat your accusations, I give the you the opportunity to pause and actually consider whether you are at all informed or rather whether you are the relation of an NYT-editor? The FT's worldwide coverage, staff and "story-breaking" can not really even be debated so I'll ask you perhaps to rephrase your criticisms in a manner in which they can actually be addressed. If not for the considerably above-average reporting of John Burns, the NYT would be as pathetic as the rest of the US media coverage of Iraq, Afghan. "30 dead reported in blast in Irbil. Iraq army says civilians wounded. US confirms no US army casualties. Islamic Black Army of death claims credit, can not confirm claims." With insightful stories such as these its no wonder the American public has no clue as to the conduct of our government abroad. (Not that they'd care, since US abuse of Iraqi prisoners was well-covered abroad prior to the release of photographic evidence, its just those story-breakin' NYTers must not have had the space given the extensive Chandra Levy coverage).

Reporting the number of deaths each day and who was responsible for them might be news (although it hasn't been in Iraq for at least 18 months) but it ain't "story-breaking" coverage. Out of the politically-driven pile-up that passes for debate in Washington the only way to have any idea of what's going on in Iraq from an objective viewpoint is to read the FT (or you can find predictably distorted but way more in-depth coverage in Le Monde). US coverage of this story is a beautiful case-study in the failure of American journalism.

In terms of opinion pieces, despite my enthusiasm for the FT, I'm afraid it doesn't do much better than anywhere else. Most of it's readable, and the invitation pieces can be quite good, but Amity Shales makes Tom Friedman look like the most inventive thinker since Aristotle and Will Safire seem even-handed. Caldwell writes OK but also puts the jerk in knee-jerk conservative (and is incidently the author of 2-MJ pieces in the last 6 months).

There is one exception. Martin Wolf is by far the best op-ed writer that presently exists in newspaper media (I welcome the insults and introductions to those whom I have not yet read). He puts together a compelling narrative, beautiful charts, and convincing stories for the most relevant global macro-economic issues of the day and lays them out in relatively simple but non-condescending prose. He offers his argument to the world to accept or refute without hiding behind malapropisms, arrogance or doctrine. He has an ideology, but he wears it openly and seems open to doubt and constructive criticism. Granted he ends up with a lot 'economical' on the one hand and one the other, but what do you want Carnac the Magnificent?(Stephen Roach is also quite good, though obviously he is not a 'newspaperman'). If only Martin would not talk about politics. Although he refutes the economists' stubborn mathematical reliance solely on argumentation that suggests if it can't be deduced from simple axioms its not worth considering, but I'm afraid he simply does not carry the same intellectual rigor nor anlytical talents to the field of politics as he does to that of global macro.

Finally, lest you all think I am still employed for Pearson, I shall add a touch of criticism to balance the sachrine fare. The FT's incessant kissing up to wealthy of wallet but paupers of taste does become rather boring. I refer to the endless pullouts about $20k watches and $5K dresses and a 'must-have' but pointless techno-gismo, the stories about the hideous serivce, and wretched mix-ups of water orders at the $300 pp restaurants, etc. However, if putting up with such things is the price of extensive global coverage and "story-breakin'" news and the necessary antidote to MJ and stories about bloggers hitting the big-time then I'm all for it (BTW newstands in DC don't seem to get the 'How to Spend It' section, what's the deal? I desperately need to know what the current in thing is that I can't afford).

All I ask is that not too many of you start reading the thing regularly, or the next time Pearson commits some market research and finds out the readership is all wealthy, right-leaning Americans the whole enterprise will go rapidly downhill chasing its self-justifying rigidly ideological tail like the Eocnomist has and likewise become unreadable.

And then what I will have to acompany my gentle Saturday afternoon gin and tonic in place of the always amusing Tyler Brule?

[hey]

that's horrible. if brad delong and all the other people on this blog like the FT, there must be something wron, besides its love of sclerotic europe and a bit too socialist.

when you start liking the wsj's editorial page i'll really have problems

[thierry coville]

Coming back on Iran, one can add that the recent comments on the Iranian election from the US government show that they don't have a clue about what is going on there.