Oh, the two types of disdain are really the same thing and not left at all. And just what is that real FT circulation in the US--15,000?
I suppose one might be convinced to believe 'someone in a position to know' if one's starting point was the WSJ or something. But I believe such an 'opposition' is pretty empty. One only needs to look at the one year of coverage on the USuk alliance propaganda machine in the run up to the all-out invasion of IRaq to see the limits of all that disdain. Left is not, I repeat, left is not a term I would use to describe anything I've ever read at FT. Perhaps more euro-centric in a statist sense (and less laisser-faire that it likes to believe) than much of its readership and to quite an extent less upper-class than the FT people themselves would like to believe because it's more about buying knighthoods than inheriting estates.
But for politics and shaping opinion, FT sucks (as does CP, for entirely different reasons, since FT is still a good business newspaper, especially if you are an investor in the UK, the Commonwealth, or Europe and CP is mostly amateurish, under-researched opinion piece dregs). BTW, there is quite a bit of incest between FT and the Economist in terms of the politics and the position vis-a-vis the UK establishment, such as getting info. from MI 5 and 6. So 'left' is not a word that belongs in the discussion. As for the Economist's America love, that has two explantions: one, the Economist became a popular establishment read in the US during the Clinton and Bill Gates years of the 1990s, and two, the Economist editor is an all-out pro-zionist nutbag.
F
-- _______________________________________________ NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once. http://datingsearch.lycos.com