Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Just a few quick reactions...

Needs a little cleaning up, a few typos ("I am writing" sted "I a mwriting" and "workers, especially middle-class ones," sted "workers, especially middle calss ones") and one or two grammatical issues (should be "for the price of not letting the very rich GET even more...").

I think the LTE page is unlikely to actually publish a graph.  Maybe I'm wrong, but most papers wouldn't.  In an op-ed column, you might have better luck with that, but even then it would be rare.  So you may want to summarize what the graph says in a brief sentence, e.g. "As was shown in the FT's own story TITLE, published DATE, blah de blah de blah..."

This final section isn't really working for me at all:

... can lead to very different conclusions, if one chooses to do so. I wonder why that choice is so rarely made (the choice to worry about lack of healthcare coverage instead of the fact that 'too few' seniors work), and I would hope that voices carrying that choice could be heard more frequently in the FT.

I would prefer "can lead to very different conclusions."  Period.  But then your "choice" wording really doesn't work, which I'm not sure it does anyway.  The parenthetical statement is unclear and distracting in that position -- it should be made earlier.

I'd recommend some reworking of that paragraph.  I'll see what I can come up with, but in the meantime I thought I'd toss these other things out there.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Apr 16th, 2007 at 08:18:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome wrote:

We are all soaked on a permanent basis by gloomy, or even catastrophist descriptions of the French economy, but the statistics in the very pages of your own paper can lead to very different conclusions, if one chooses to do so. I wonder why that choice is so rarely made (the choice to worry about lack of healthcare coverage instead of the fact that 'too few' seniors work), and I would hope that voices carrying that choice could be heard more frequently in the FT.

My attempt:

We are all continually soaked in gloomy, even catastrophist descriptions of the French economy, but the statistics in your very own pages can lead to very different conclusions, if one chooses to make them.  I wonder why that choice is so rarely made [in these pages??], and I hope that the FT will give voice more often to those who make that choice, and who refuse to view the French system as irretreivably doomed.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Apr 16th, 2007 at 08:41:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I left out the part about health care and senior-citizen unemployment because, while it would be relevant to a discussion about editorial decisions, it's tangential to the specific point, which is editorial decisions regarding the French economy.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Apr 16th, 2007 at 08:47:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I hear you! Let me try again...


We are all soaked on a permanent basis by gloomy, or even catastrophist descriptions of the French economy, but the statistics in the very pages of your own paper can lead to very different conclusions, if one so chooses. I wonder why that choice is so rarely made, and I would hope that voices carrying that more optimistic outlook could be heard more frequently in the FT.



In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Apr 16th, 2007 at 08:54:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your end is better than mine, but I still don't like "on a permanent basis," because I think what you mean is that it's continual.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Apr 16th, 2007 at 09:23:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree, and think "We are all continually..." is better than "on a permanent basis".
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Apr 16th, 2007 at 10:31:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series