I am a paid subscriber to the Financial Times, though I recently cancelled it, so some time in February, my access to the articles will run out. It is owned by Nikkei Inc, a Japansese media company. It has been for some time.
Why am I leaving? Because is has become a paper reporting more on politics than finance. Also, at over £300/year, they restrict the articles I can see. Effing ridiculous.
They do have a good reputaion though. However, it is still, in my opinion, embellisdhed. Twice I have read articles about subject matter I am directly involved in, in a professional capacity. And twice, they were not terribly accurate. One was during the implementation of the EU financial directive and regulation, together referred to as MiFID II. It doesn't matter what it is about, however, the story they wrote was for a particular part of the regulation I was working on was that the regulation was nebulous, that the industry working groups had no idea what to do, and it was effectively unworkable. That article was read by the managing director of one of the businesses (effectively a CEO), who sent me a sharp email referring to the article and a please explain given the progress updates I provided to him did not highlight this dire situation.
My response was that there were some minor questions on the meaning of a couple of paragrpahs in the regulation, that the regulator had porovided clarification, and not only was it well understood by ourselves, but the industry groups had also understood it.. and that our bank as well as three others I was in contact with had implemented the systems to meet the rule - 18 months before they had to!
They also reported that the total number of paragrpahs for the regulation and all of the supporting officlal clarifications, technical standards, implementation standards (EU law is bloody verbose), came to over 9 milliion. Well, I haven't read all of the EU member states extensions, but I had read all of the EU and FCA regulations, clarigications, explanatory notes, technical standards, and implementing standards, and bugger me, it was no where near that.
You pay for BS with any media - they want you get read it for eyeballs sell advertising. The more hysteria they can raise, the more people will look, the more advertising they will sell.
(p.s. in Aus, I may have kept the subscription as I could probably write it off against my taxable income; over here, they are tight-arses..)