When the writer is already not telling the whole truth by the second paragraph, not even a summary can help.
For the benefit of those who have not read the article, here's the second paragraph. Copied and pasted without permission, including the warning from TFT
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/97dc7de6-940b-11ea-abcd-371e24b679edHere's the maligned second paragraph:
Shortly before the CDC visit, Trump said “within a couple of days, [infections are] going to be down to close to zero”. The US then had 15 cases. “One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” A few days afterwards, he claimed: “I’ve felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.” That afternoon at the CDC provides an X-ray into Trump’s mind at the halfway point between denial and acceptance.The article continues with a quick review of the facts and events leading up to the current situation.
The <insert usual suspects here> will deride the article as yet another political hit piece. However, The Financial Times deserves research.
Wikipedia:
According to the Global Capital Markets Survey, which measures readership habits amongst most senior financial decision makers in the world's largest financial institutions, the Financial Times is considered the most important business read, reaching 36% of the sample population, 11% more than The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), its main rival. The Economist, which was once 50% owned by FT, reaches 32%. FT's The Banker also proved vital reading, reaching 24%.[40] In addition FT was regarded as the most credible publication in reporting financial and economic issues among the Worldwide Professional Investment Community audience. The Economist was also rated the third most credible title by most influential professional investors (those who personally managed asset funds worth $5 billion or more), while the WSJ was second.[41]Further reading on Wikipedia reveals that:
The FT advocates free markets and is in favour of globalisation, as well as globalist policies.
During the 1980s it supported Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's monetarist policies.For the benefit of <insert usual suspects here>
(1) Piece-by-piece, point-by-point
validated disputation of the facts in the article welcomed.
(2) Flat out, unattributed general denial of the facts not welcomed, but expected.
