James Esses. The Financial Times has been CAPTURED. Part 1 in my trilogy on how major institutions have lost their way

---

Matt Goodwin’s Substack goes to more than 51,500 subscribers from 166 countries around the world and thousands of paying supporters who support our work. Like our stuff? Then help us expand by becoming a paid supporter and access everything —the full archive, exclusive posts, polling, leave comments, join the debate, get discounts, advance notice about events, and the knowledge you’re supporting independent writers who are not afraid to push back against the grain. You can also join our community on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter/X

---

Over the next three weeks, in a new series for paying subscribers, James Esses will expose how several household names have been fully captured by radical gender ideology. This is the first. Upgrade to access everything.

---

The Financial Times (FT), founded in 1888, is considered by many to be the leading newspaper focused on business, economic and current affairs. However, in recent years, like many other major organisations, I’ve noticed a clear and concerning slant in how the newspaper reports on sex and gender.

Adhering to ‘preferred pronouns’ regarding the recent outrage over biological male boxer, Imane Khelif. Writing positively about trans-affirmative action in the workplace. Writing critically about Rishi Sunak noting Keir Starmer’s belief that women can have a penis. And finding time to feature a 2,000 word interview with trans-activist Judith Butler while being unable to find space to publish an article on the last government’s decision to ban puberty blockers among children.

Perhaps all this should come as no surprise given how, as Matt Goodwin has already reported on this Substack, the left-leaning media class is not only out-of-step with public opinion but increasingly out-of-step with the things that used to guide journalism —truth, neutrality, independence, and prioritising evidence, reason, and objective knowledge over dogma. Too many journalists, he notes, especially young journalists, look more like activists than evidence-led seekers of the truth.

Look at the Financial Times today and you might be left wondering where these things have gone. From its coverage of Brexit to the issues that I cover in this Substack —sex and gender— the ideological slant is now increasingly visible to all. And if you’re wondering where it comes from then I may well have found the answer.

A whistleblower from inside the Financial Times recently provided me with the paper’s ‘Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit’ —a document pushed to all members of staff.

The introduction, from the FT’s former Global Head of Diversity and Inclusion, Yasir Mirza (who is now Director of EDI at the Football Association), tells staff:

“We’ll only make progress when we all take on the responsibility to be D&I change-agents. And we know that we can only feel empowered to take on that responsibility when we’re equipped with the right tools and techniques.”

No pressure then. But why does Diversity and Inclusion matter?

In the first section of the Toolkit, FT staff are told they have a duty of “communicating our D&I brand” and to “drive progress towards a more equitable world”.

However, if not convinced by this, the FT then engage in the hard sell.

Staff are told that: “At the FT, we believe that focusing on D&I will create a positive impact on our culture, on our products and on the communities we reach and represent”.

The Toolkit then talks staff through the various ways in which promoting Diversity and Inclusion will boost profitability, relevance and sales. It’s abundantly clear what is expected from staff by their senior management.

Employees are even told they are living in a time of “culture wars and binaries” (though I wonder what binary they are referring to here). Much of this, put simply, is utterly at odds with the newspaper’s claim that it is “one of the world’s leading news organisations, recognised internationally for our authority, integrity and accuracy”. Pushing D&I in all parts of the FT’s work, including its journalism, jeopardises integrity and accuracy.

One of the most concerning sections of the Toolkit, which attempts to turn journalists into activists, is a section on “allyship” (sorry, are we in a war?)

“An ally’s value is determined by their intended beneficiaries, not by the individual. You cannot call yourself an ally without the intended beneficiaries recognising you as one”.

This is a deeply worrying sentiment and suggests to staff that, even if they consider themselves supportive of certain groups or individuals, the only thing that matters is whether they are recognised as such by that group.

The call to arms goes further. Staff are told they should “become collaborators, accomplices, and co-conspirators who fight injustice and promote equity in the workplace through supportive personal relationships and public acts of sponsorship and advocacy.”

It’s no longer sufficient to simply avoid discriminating against others. Now, staff must fight causes through public advocacy.

For journalists who have a duty of accuracy and impartiality, this is chilling. It is basically Critical Race Theory (CRT), the unscientific, dubious, and contested theory of identity group competition that’s wreaked havoc in America and is now being imported into Britain’s institutions —including its newspapers and schools.

The FT include a diagram, in which staff can see where they stand on the ‘allyship continuum’. Staff are told they are either an “adversary” or “ally” and that if they want to be recognised as true allies they must “interrupt and educate and initiate an organised response”. This is divisive rhetoric, aimed at pitting people against one another.

In a section on stereotyping and bias, the FT begin by stating that the paper is against all forms of stereotyping, only to then engage in a dollop of it themselves, telling staff that “American culture tends to expect candour and directness whereas Japanese culture is more likely to expect indirectness and harmoniousness”. That the irony of this was missed by senior management, is somewhat disconcerting.

Particularly harrowing is when staff are told they have “naivety bias” if they believe in “objective reality”. Given ongoing threats to biological reality by those who claim that it is possible for humans to change sex, this type of statement will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on FT journalism. It’s also deeply alarming that journalists are being trained to question things like “objective reality”.

The section concludes with a video by ‘American diversity consultant’, Verna Myers. Entitled ‘how to overcome your biases’, the video does nothing other than highlight the clear bias of Myers in favour of Critical Race Theory.

She tells the audience: 

“I know we’re not shooting people down in the street but the same stereotypes and prejudices that fuelled this type of incident are in us”.

For those who believe that colour-blindness is the way to avoid racism, Myers tells them, unwaveringly, that such an approach will “cause early deaths” in black people and that we should instead “stare at awesome black people”, whatever that means.

Finally, Myers speaks hopefully of a time in which, around a Christmas table, a child can proudly say “Grandma is a bigot”. This is nothing more than ideological indoctrination and the FT are imposing it on their staff who are, remember, supposed to be truth-seeking journalists, not radical ideologues.

Then comes a section on so-called “microaggressions”, a term used to refer to slights that communicate hostile or negative attitudes toward those of different races, beliefs, genders, and so on.

According to FT senior leadership, telling someone who happens to be Black that they are “so articulate” is a microaggression, regardless of the context.

Comments which dismiss the “lived experience” of others are racist, “regardless of someone’s intention” in making them.

How can this type of statement do anything other than put the fear of God into journalists that they will be labelled a racist if they dare to challenge this narrative?

For staff who fall into that category, they are told that “it’s useful to have moments of shame … without becoming mired in our guilt”.

One of the most shocking things within the Toolkit, is a video entitled ‘How microaggressions are like mosquito bites’.

The video is produced by Fusion Comedy, an organisation which “spotlights material from a culturally diverse, LGBTQIAAP+, BIPOC, perspective.” Hardly a neutral resource.

The cartoon video shows people —in the form of mosquitos— exclaiming various microaggressions (such as saying to a Black person that they are “well spoken”).

In response, the recipient of the microaggression “goes ballistic” by, I kid you not, shooting the mosquitos with a gun. Viewers are told that if this seems like an overreaction, that is because they “only get bitten every once in a while”.

We are told that many micoaggressive mosquitos “carry disease”. At the end of the video, all the recipients of microaggressions take joy in swatting and killing those pesky mosquitos. How is this not incitement to violence? And why are these kinds of videos being shown to staff at a supposedly serious newspaper like the FT?

In further pursuit of shaming certain members of staff and victimising others, the FT showcase a video of an exercise called a ‘Privilege Walk’, which should “show the advantages and disadvantages people have by virtue of their birth”. 

Participants literally take steps forwards or backwards depending on their perceived privilege status. Signs of privilege include “having more than 50 books” at home when they were growing up.

This exercise produces such enlightening comments from participants as: “I suppose being a white male will get me towards the front but then I’ll take a few steps back for being gay”. FT staff are being coached into viewing people solely according to immutable characteristics. This is classic identity politics.

At the end of the video, a participant says that the exercise brought up “feelings around slavery” and that “no amount of hard work” can make up the privilege gap that exists. This is nothing more than encouraging perpetual victimhood.

On the topic of ‘reverse discrimination’, in which people feel negatively impacted by positive discrimination in favour of certain groups, employees are told outright that this is “a myth because of the systemic relationship to power”. In essence, in the FT’s eyes, anyone in a majority cannot be discriminated against.

If the above wasn’t clear evidence of ideological capture, then the next section is.

The FT features a video of trans activist, Jessie Gender, who provides staff with a diatribe of ideology, none of which comes close to prioritising the things that journalists at a major newspaper like the FT should be prioritising —things like truth, objective inquiry, logic, and scientific knowledge.

They are told that “people have put arbitrary ideas of gender onto genitals” and that “penises are considered masculine gender markers”. This is an attempt to indoctrinate staff into believing that it’s possible for a woman to have a penis.

Gender identity is “how you identify in your head and heart”, with staff being told that they are ‘cisgender’ if their “gender identity matches sex assigned at birth”.

Most worrying of all is the video’s attempt to erase the notion of same-sex attraction – hugely offensive to LBG people. Jessie Gender says that sexual orientation is “only about the gender identities you find attractive”.

Finally, staff are told that the “bottom line” is that you must “respect everyone’s self-identification”. How might a female member of staff feel about challenging a man in the female toilets after hearing that?

In the penultimate section of the Toolkit, the FT tells its staff that, in order to “create an open space of inclusive conversations”, they should always ask for pronouns at the start of every meeting and introduce themselves with their own pronouns in return.

For staff who are not au fait with pronouns, the FT helpfully redirect them to https://pronouns.org/, which offers guidance on pronouns such as ze/zir, per/pers, ey/em and xe/xem.

Particularly concerning is the clear impact that indulging pronouns will have on the FT’s journalism. Staff are told: 

“As a rule of thumb, if we were asked to explain why we used a term such as ‘parents and caregivers’ rather than ‘mothers and fathers,’ we should be able to explain why.”

Staff are then told in a video that “it can be offensive or harassing to guess at someone’s pronouns” and that misgendering “can risk someone’s safety”. Finally, “getting someone’s gender right is on you”.

Imagine being a journalist faced with reporting a story about a male rapist who self-identifies as a woman. If they dare to report sex accurately, their employer has made it clear it will come down on them like a ton of bricks.

As I came to the end of the FT’s Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit, I was struck by the completely one-sided nature of it. There was nothing about women’s rights. Nothing about gender critical beliefs. Nothing about free speech. Nothing about why, despite all of this, journalists should remember to prioritise truth over dogma.

Instead, staff were at the receiving end of what looks to me like lies, scaremongering and cult-like preaching. It’s impossible for journalists working at the FT to NOT be impacted by this material. How are they expected to report accurately and neutrally on the most important issues of our time when their employer has made it clear it is taking a side? When its employer has visibly become ideologically captured?

This Toolkit, in my mind, calls into question the impartiality and integrity of the Financial Times and that should concern us all. Were it not for a brave whistleblower, we would have no idea what is going on behind closed doors at the FT.

Yet this also raises the important and somewhat scary question – just how many other newspapers and news broadcasters have been infected by this woke ideology? Well, join me next week for Part II in my trilogy on the institutions, when we will delve into the ideological capture of … the BBC.

---

Matt Goodwin’s Substack goes to more than 51,500 subscribers across 166 countries, and thousands of paid supporters who make our work possible. Like our stuff? Then help us by becoming a paid supporter and access everything —the full archive, exclusive posts, polling, leave comments, join the debate, get discounts, advance notice about events, and the knowledge you’re supporting independent writers who are not afraid to push back against the grain. You can also join our community on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter/X.

---