> I suppose I'm defending the FT in the sense that there is no alterior motive, I believe

No ulterior motive? I really don't know about that.

They're better than most, because they generally tell the truth - a shockingly low bar - but it's a specific type of truth, as seen from a specific and very narrow window, from a deliberate vantage point.

Always viewing the world from that specific window belies a motive, conscious or not, to maintain a highly destructive status quo. They are not seeing the forest for the trees, while writing factual and detailed reports on the least consequential tree bark facts.

Which is fine, if tree bark facts are your bag, I guess - but I'm more concerned about the rapidly deteriorating forest.