Dear Sir, On today's front page of the European edition, you print a scaremongering story about a possible brain drain from France should Ségolène Royal be elected, recalling what one could read in the "good old times" of the Cold War in the 70s. While it is your job to report what France's top leaders are saying, it would also be appropriate to provide facts on the matter - fact that you actually provided not so long ago... In your edition dated 18 May 2006, Simon Briscoe presented a graph showing the net migrations of graduates to and from various countries in the early 2000s. That graph (attached) showed that France was the only large European country without a large brain drain to other industrialised countries, while the UK had the worst such brain drain. And that for a period when France had a government including communist ministers. If you don't like Ségolène Royal, that is your prerogative, but it would certainly be better if such bias could be avoided in what are meant to be factual articles, and kept in your editorial section.
On today's front page of the European edition, you print a scaremongering story about a possible brain drain from France should Ségolène Royal be elected, recalling what one could read in the "good old times" of the Cold War in the 70s. While it is your job to report what France's top leaders are saying, it would also be appropriate to provide facts on the matter - fact that you actually provided not so long ago... In your edition dated 18 May 2006, Simon Briscoe presented a graph showing the net migrations of graduates to and from various countries in the early 2000s. That graph (attached) showed that France was the only large European country without a large brain drain to other industrialised countries, while the UK had the worst such brain drain. And that for a period when France had a government including communist ministers.
If you don't like Ségolène Royal, that is your prerogative, but it would certainly be better if such bias could be avoided in what are meant to be factual articles, and kept in your editorial section.
fact that you actually provided not so long ago...
facts.
France was the only large European country without a large brain drain to other industrialised countries, while the UK had the worst such brain drain. And that for a period when France had a government including communist ministers.
France was the only major European country without a large brain drain to other industrialised countries, while the highest brain drain occurred with respect to the UK. And this was at a time when France had a left-wing government, even including communist ministers!
It's entirely the prerogative of the Financial Times to oppose Ségolène Royal's candidature. But the reputation of your newspaper would be better served if such bias were kept to the editorial section, and carefully avoided in what purport to be factual articles.
My suggestion: If you don't like Ségolène Royal, that is your prerogative, but it is distressing that such bias seems to inappropriately influence the reporting in what is meant to be factual articles. Surely it is enough that such opinions be expressed in your editorial section, where they belong.
Karen in Austin 'tis strange I should be old and neither wise nor valiant. From "The Maid's Tragedy" by Beaumont & Fletcher
I envision future LTE´s ending with the "ET signature catapult", like
"...just today XXX members at eurotrib.com have fully suscribed this letter..." Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
I fully subscribe to the letter, and to the catapult. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
Just today I sent a comment to cnn.com ((about the blatant omission of the US in the child poverty article that finger-points at the UK (bruno-ken in Salon de News)) and it would be much more effective if it came from a collective.
Technically, I leave it to others, but maybe just an asterisk in front of the title would alert us of an LTE in progress, so we can participate. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
Dear Sir, On today's front page of the European edition, you print a scaremongering story about a possible brain drain from France should Ségolène Royal be elected, recalling what one could read in the "good old times" of the Cold War in the 70s ("French industry warns of brain drain"). While it is your job to report what France's top leaders are saying, it would also be appropriate to provide facts on the matter - facts that you actually printed in your own columns not so long ago... In your edition dated 18 May 2006, Simon Briscoe presented a graph showing the net migrations of graduates to and from various countries in the early 2000s. That graph (attached) showed that France was the only major European country without a large brain drain to other industrialised countries, while the highest brain drain occurred with respect to the UK. And this was at a time when France had a left-wing government, even including communist ministers! It's entirely the prerogative of the Financial Times to oppose Ségolène Royal's candidature, but it is distressing that such bias seems to inappropriately influence the reporting in what is meant to be factual articles. The reputation of your newspaper would be better served if such opinions were kept to the editorial section, where they belong, and carefully avoided in front page headlines.
While it is your job to report what France's top leaders are saying, it would also be appropriate to provide facts on the matter - facts that you actually printed in your own columns not so long ago... In your edition dated 18 May 2006, Simon Briscoe presented a graph showing the net migrations of graduates to and from various countries in the early 2000s. That graph (attached) showed that France was the only major European country without a large brain drain to other industrialised countries, while the highest brain drain occurred with respect to the UK. And this was at a time when France had a left-wing government, even including communist ministers!
It's entirely the prerogative of the Financial Times to oppose Ségolène Royal's candidature, but it is distressing that such bias seems to inappropriately influence the reporting in what is meant to be factual articles. The reputation of your newspaper would be better served if such opinions were kept to the editorial section, where they belong, and carefully avoided in front page headlines.
what are meant...
Thanks! In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I would've simply wrote
FT, lickspittle of the wealthy and powerful, once again, you prove that you suck.
