Three things caught my eye in the Sunday Times: tobacco companies, competitive workforce and making big losses. And the thing they share? There’s more than meets the eye.

First off there’s the tobacco debacle. The Times Money section informs us that smart funds favour smaller businesses such as Signet, the jeweller, and American firms such as Altria, which makes Marlboro cigarettes. Now, while almost any company causes detriment to someone, tobacco manufacturers are one of the few in my opinion legit targets for whatever shit throwing and general mayhem is possible.

I mean, surely no-one can anymore can that they aim to do anything but money, caring as little as is possible (or less) about human lives, and especially the length and quality of it? Remember what inspired the movie Insider, how they claimed that prematurely dying smokers actually save the state’s money, or what has been done to the Finnish press by the pro-tobacco lobby? And here’s a (supposedly) qualified journalist in a quality paper giving advice to people to indirectly invest in tobacco. Come on, dear reporter Alicia Wyllie, you’re making it too easy.

On to the next target. Naturally I knew that the Times leans to the right, but I was still a tad baffled when I read David Smith’s article headlined A cure for poor UK productivity. That the UK’s competitiveness isn’t up to par was, by the way, determined by a 50,000 pound study. But then again, that’s consultation. (Netherlands, USA and France came out on top, while the UK still managed to beat Sweden, Finland and Japan.) However, the gist of my unhappiness lies within a single sentence. I quote: Britain can no longer keep living off the Thatcher reforms that gave us low taxation and regulation, and flexible, largely de-unionised, job markets. How much more bleeding obvious can you get without saying ”it’s a good thing we spared the buggers’ lives so they can work their asses off for our good”?

Onto my final issue. (Oh boy, do I have issues today.) The paper has devoted an entire page for an interview with Ray Webster, the chief executive of Easyjet. Even though this interview is inside the business section, it could just as well be in lifestyle. First of all, the story is full of sycophanting. There’s no confronting. Second, it’s one-sided. Even though they touch on the subject of Ryanair quite a few times, no effort is made to get even the tiniest soundbite from the Irish. You could argue that interviews are supposed to concentrate on one person, and you might have a point. However this theory is sort of debunked by the fact that Mr Andrew Davidson has included quotes from Mr Webster’s No 2 (anyone referred to by that name twice in one article might want to consider some serious career moves).

Then there’s the abysmal reasoning. Easyjet lost £46.9 million over the last six months. So what does the acute reporter do? Naturally he goes on to discuss the perks: And now he is here with a nice house in London’s Hampstead and a silver Porsche GT3 ordered to replace his old silver Porsche – showing that no-frills doesn’t have to extend to the complete lifestyle. Note the cute allusion to Easyjet, the no-frills airline. Imaginative. Then think of £46.9 million in six months. And what kind of a headline is Steady hand keeps Easyjet aloft in no-frills dogfight? Cos I mean, like, duh, come on, £46.9 million in six months. See what I’m getting at?

I’ve mentioned the journalists’ names here because I believe that they are more responsible for their copy than their editors (and I’m trying really really hard to believe in journalistic freedom on the independent level). In all of these cases the tone of the whole piece reflects the same skewed way of thought, which means that a) the reporter isn’t making just some innocent Freudian slip but believes in what s/he is doing or b) the editors are bastards who’ve completely mutilated the copy.