Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

The breathtaking dishonesty of the Financial Times newspaper.

Today (Thurday 14 April 2011) I have seen perhaps the most dishonest frontpage story in a supposedly “quality” newspaper, that I have come upon in my life.

The “Financial Times” has a front page story that President Barack Obama has proposed cutting four trillion (yes with a “t”) Dollars from the American Federal government deficit over a period of ten years.

Such a story, if true, would be welcome news – as the American Federal government is already more than 14 trillion Dollars in debt (thanks, in part, to the wild “stimulus” spending of President Obama – which the Financial Times supported) and is borrowing more than one and half trillion Dollars in the comming year alone.  So whilst the Federal government would still be spending trillions of Dollars over the next ten years – it would at least be spending four trillion Dollars less, and so would also borrow four trillion Dollars less.

The Financial Times, however, then goes on to report that spending cuts to tax increases are at a rate of three to one – so, in reality, the spending cuts are three trillion Dollars.

“Well that is dishonest Paul – but not wild dishonesty, you have got too upset over such a thing”.

Accept for one fact:

There is no “three trillion Dollar” spending cut (no more than there is a four trillion Dollar one). It is all a LIE a vast stinking LIE.

Barack Obama has proposed no real overall spending cut at all – it is all smoke and mirrors, waffle and spit.

It is the duty of a “quality” newspaper (especially a financial newspaper) to expose such a vast lie – but, instead, the Financial Times reports it as if it were the truth – and makes this lie a front page news story.

They are scoundrels, scum of the worst order. They are financial journalists, they must know what they are reporting as truth is a lie. They are misleading, deliberatly misleading, any trader or investor who sees the front page of their newspaper. I care not for what qualification there may be inside the newspaper (I have not looked inside it – and I do not intend to dirty my hands with it) – it is the front page headline and story that is what matters.

Should the lying scoundrals of the Financial Times, who have undertaken this fraud upon the pulblic, take exception to my words – I am at their disposal, for I am prepared to defend my words before the courts.

10 Comments

  1. RAB says:

    Well a link would be handy Paul, but we both know that the Finacial Times is behind a paywall. But see if this works…

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/da928e1c-656e-11e0-b150-00144feab49a.html#axzz1JXhmqesT

    Now if that doesn’t, and I have just read the article I think you are referring to, then do what I heard about the other day. This works apparently for most paywalls, but not the Times and Sunday Times.

    Go to the Financial Times site, select the article you want, don’t open it cos you get a registration thingy. Highlight it and copy and paste to your search box, then click on the headline that comes up. You can then read the article. I have no idea why this happens, but it does.

  2. Laird says:

    FWIW, Paul, Obama actually did say that his proposal would cut “spending” by $4 trillion over 10 years. Of course, none of his numbers add up, and he explicitly referred to current tax deductions as “spending” which was to be curtailed. (See, through the magic of rhetoric one can turn a tax increase into a spending cut!) So, really it’s the Liar in Chief, more than the Financial Times, which should be called to account.

    Because it’s lies all the way down.

  3. Lynne says:

    It’s merely Obummer kicking off his re-election campaign. Like any other politician he’s got the concepts of honesty and integrity (rare as rocking horse droppings) and lying through his teeth (unlimited abundance) arse about face.

  4. PeterT says:

    That said, I have read the FT fairly regularly for the last ten years and it definitely appears to be getting more left wing – or at least more pro government. The awful Martin Wolf in particular gets my hackles up. His latest piece on the Paul Ryan plan was a classic. He criticised Ryan’s plan for being ineffective at cutting the deficit – while ending up providing a mix of government services that Wolf disapproved of. This was somehow supposed to be an opportunity to Obama. Maybe the Wall Street Journal is better. I might switch my subscription.

    I think it says a lot that to get decent investigative journalism and common sense opinion you have to go the Reason magazine, in my view by far and away the best news magazine. Shame its got no UK version of it.

  5. Bob Z says:

    The FT is written by a bunch of communist arseholes. Have you only just found out?

  6. Nelsontouch says:

    So let’s see if I’ve got this straight:
    The USA is heading for bankruptcy, the Europeans are almost there, the Chinese are in an unsustainable bubble boom based on US debt, the Arabs are spending money to stave off uprisings everywhere, but they won’t have any money if the West goes belly-up, Africa is doing better than expected but mainly because the Chinese (see above) are buying minerals but won’t much longer, and Australia just had a trade deficit.
    And the pols think the real problem is the weather/climate ?

    Can I emigrate to Mars? This planet’s mad.

  7. Paul Marks says:

    There is a difference between Obama comming out with the “four trillion in cuts” line and the Financial Times putting it (as TRUTH) on their front page.

    This was not even an opinion piece – it was a, supposedly, straight news story.

    Onece even “Communist arseholes” on the Financial Times were not so blatent as to openly LIE in a front page story.

  8. Laird says:

    Nelsontouch, I think you have that just about right. Mind if I go with you?

  9. Umbongo says:

    The FT has been the Guardian printed on pink paper for a long time. Nevertheless, it used to be fairly strict about the fact/opinion divide and, accordingly, its reportage was more or less reliable. This was important when its readership – which was more or less restricted to the City – read it for information rather than advice. As fewer and fewer City types relied on – or even read – it, the FT went “international” and tried to compete with the WSJ (a much more serious – even ponderous – publication) by becoming a journal with a concentration on finance rather than the City’s local rag writ large. This plus the appointment of a succession of lefty editors resulted in a serious decline in the FT’s reputation – and, I believe, circulation – in the City.

    More unfortunately, since Lionel Barber’s appointment as editor, the FT has joined the Guardian and the BBC in the wholesale polluting of the retailing of facts by being politically selective about which facts to report and how to report them. So, unsurprisingly, the FT has ended up (as has the BBC) as a cheer-leader for Obama and is prepared to put into the public domain – as fact – that which Obama’s spin-meisters wish to see reported.

  10. Paul Marks says:

    I think Umbongo has got it right.

    The Finanical Times is no longer a serious newspaper – it is a lying propaganda sheet.

    Corporate sales or not – its days are numbered (and it is not a big number).

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: