Ha! I always love it when they describe their "editing and checking procedures" (notice how these two are separated?) as "rigorous"!

 Cracks me up every time!

 When having spotted something false in the FT, you ought to always assume first that it's a mistake due to ignorance--unless it's inconceivable that any human being, even a reporter for the FT, could be that ignorant.  Then you may proceed to postulate that the "error" is due to malice, deliberate or inadvertent.

  By the way, just a minor point, Jérôme:

  it ought to be "tripe" rather than "trip"--

  "But this is based on manifest error, and the FT only hurts its credibility by printing such trip - and on its front page no less."

  I almost wrote that, "There's little chance that they won't have understood your meaning--" but stopped there.  You can't afford to allow such a error--it could confuse the FT editor --though goodness knows she or he ought to be familiar with the word "tripe"; or, they could take up the habit of writing "trip" for "tripe" as a newishly trendy thing to do.  And one mustn't encourage them in that.

 ;^)

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge