DISCIPLINE · 35% of composite
Financial Times vs The Economist — Discipline
How rigorously each source backs its factual claims with verifiable evidence.
Verdict
Financial Times outscores The Economist on Citation Discipline by 17 points (A · 88 vs B · 71).
Higher Discipline
News
Financial Times
ft.com
A·88
Rank #68 of 130 on Discipline
Editorial Code public; multi-source verification; corrections discipline.
News
The Economist
economist.com
B·71
Rank #115 of 130 on Discipline
Editorial fact-check process is rigorous, but anonymity makes individual-claim provenance opaque.
Global rank · Discipline
Why these Discipline scores
Financial TimesA·88
Discipline · 88/100
Editorial Code public; multi-source verification; corrections discipline.
The EconomistB·71
Discipline · 71/100
Editorial fact-check process is rigorous, but anonymity makes individual-claim provenance opaque.
Signals behind the Discipline score
Financial Times
- FT Editorial CodePublic policy on accuracy + sourcing standards.
The Economist
- House styleArticles attributed to 'The Economist' rather than named authors.
- Internal fact-checkEditorial review per piece, not externally verifiable.
Other dimensions for Financial Times vs The Economist
Other Discipline comparisons
Wikipedia (English) vs Encyclopædia BritannicaThe New York Times vs The Washington PostAssociated Press vs ReutersFinancial Times vs The Wall Street JournalNature vs ScienceNew England Journal of Medicine vs The LancetarXiv vs PubMedDOI (CrossRef Resolver) vs Semantic ScholarForeign Affairs vs The EconomistBBC News vs The GuardianAl Jazeera English vs BBC NewsBBC News vs NPR