All that fuss about news content being driven or influenced by sponsors eh. Shocking revelations of shady dealings at the Telegraph by Oborne.
At least the Guardian is open about it….much of its news output is paid and bought for by its sponsors…..not just an advertiser withdrawing its account if it didn’t like one story but massive news coverage on world events brought to you courtesy of outside money and influence….
Sponsored content, advertisement features and content supported by foundations
Guardian News & Media produces a variety of content with funding from outside parties.
These sources of revenue allow us to explore, in more depth than editorial budgets would otherwise allow, topics that we hope are of interest to Guardian and Observer readers. The presentation of the content makes clear how the content has been commissioned and produced, and who has funded it.
Only it’s not quite so clear cut…remember the Guardian’s coverage of the riots in 2011?
It seems its reporting was shaped by a very left wing organisation …..
The Joseph Rowntree and the Open Society Foundations supported the award-winning Reading the Riots series
Funny thing is, the Guardian says it tells you that a sponsor is involved and yet I can see no sign of that on the page…just this hint that the reports might be driven by an outside agency and its data…
Reading the Riots
A data-driven study into the causes and consequences of the August 2011 riots
Then there is a huge amount of news that comes by way of the Bill& Melinda Gates Foundation…
A grant from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to help support the Guardian’s Global Development site
” A fraud is being perpetrated on BBC viewers and readers who buy into this media news outlet to get the news and instead get something that gives the impression it is vetted by the Labour Party”
“Go to the page and you get a small indication of that connection tucked away in the top right corner…”
Hardly tucked away and completely different on the web page when compared to the “clipping” that followed your comment.
Guess that you also did not follow the link below the graphic (or perhaps you did and then conveniently ignored it):
“This website is funded by support provided, in part, by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Content is editorially independent and its purpose is to focus on global development, with particular reference to the millennium development goals and their transition into the sustainable development goals from 2015. ”
And later, just in case you missed the first mention:
“The site, which hosts comment from a range of voices around the globe, alongside news, features, debate, data and student resources, is made possible by part-funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The site is editorially independent of any sponsorship.
The only restriction to the Guardian’s coverage on this site is where the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is prohibited under US law from directly funding or earmarking funds to: (a) influence the outcome of any domestic or foreign election for public office; or (b) support lobbying or other attempts to influence legislation (local, state, federal, or foreign). This means any communications to the public in which a view is expressed about a specific legislative proposal, and the recipients of the communications are urged through a ‘call to action’ to contact government officials, must provide a reasoned, objective consideration of facts and issues in a full and fair manner that enables third parties to develop their own positions on any legislation that may be discussed.
Unless otherwise stated, all statements and materials posted on the website, including any statements regarding specific legislation, reflect the views of the individual contributors and not those of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation nor the Guardian.”
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2010/sep/14/about-this-site
Very good Albaman…except it’s meaningless, you have to be particularly obtuse to ignore what the Guardian actually says….the Guardian takes money from sponsors that shapes its news agenda and coverage….here I’ll repeat it for you…
‘Sponsored content, advertisement features and content supported by foundations’
It may claim that its ‘Content is editorially independent’…except it’s not is it…its paid for by Gates and Rowntrees and wouldn’t appear otherwise…as the Guardian admits and something you conveniently ignore…
‘These sources of revenue allow us to explore, in more depth than editorial budgets would otherwise allow.’
Can’t be much clearer can it?
it’s meaningless, you have to be particularly obtuse to ignore what the Guardian actually says…”
Which is exactly what you did – you completely ignored everything the Guardian said as quoting it in full would have debunked your argument.
As I have said before, readers should read the full articles cited by you and other commentators prior to “liking” the edited highlights.
Ignored everything other than the fact that the Guardian’s news is ‘sponsored’.
You do know what ‘sponsored’ means Albaman don’t you? I have to suspect not….have another go…read this…
These sources of revenue allow us to explore, in more depth than editorial budgets would otherwise allow…
You shoud take your own advise and read the post properly and take time to understand it before leaping in with ill judged and rash comment..
“Sponsored content, advertisement features and content supported by foundations
Guardian News & Media produces a variety of content with funding from outside parties.
These sources of revenue allow us to explore, in more depth than editorial budgets would otherwise allow, topics that we hope are of interest to Guardian and Observer readers. The presentation of the content makes clear how the content has been commissioned and produced, and who has funded it.”
Pity you did not “grab” the whole page as reading it in full tends to contradict you assertion of “massive news coverage on world events brought to you courtesy of outside money and influence….”
http://www.theguardian.com/sponsored-content
Have you not read what the site provides?
Pretty extensive news coverage of issues of concern to Gates and the Rowntree Foundation.
Bought and paid for.
Obviously I did read it. Your inability to understand what is being said on the pages I cited is your issue not mine.
Obviously you didn’t read it as you claim you “contradict your assertion of “massive news coverage on world events brought to you courtesy of outside money and influence….”
There is page after page after page of news reports ‘sponsored’ by these organisations.
Here’s how it works…Bill rings up the Guardian and says ‘Listen up folks, I’ve a load of cash here that I’ll give you if you put certain stories into your paper and on your website…..I’m aiming to promote ‘global development’ and I’ll thank you to produce news stories that help the cause….now where do I send the cheque?’
Independent…my backside. News content bought and paid for. And worse in its way to what Oborne claims the Telegraph did which is the point.
And lets not forget while we are here, the equally left -wing biased “MSNBC” in the states, sponsored by…..you guessed it, Microsoft….Uncle Bill with his sticky fingers all over another news service….common purpose anyone?….anyone?
“Here’s how it works…Bill rings up the Guardian and says ‘Listen up folks, I’ve a load of cash here that I’ll give you if you put certain stories into your paper and on your website…..I’m aiming to promote ‘global development’ and I’ll thank you to produce news stories that help the cause….now where do I send the cheque?”
The facts refute your argument so you create a fiction instead!!!
Ah…you are flouncing out are you? Guess a strawman argument doesn’t take you very far.
Going no where but pointless debating with someone so blinded by their own bias and prejudices that they make up works of fiction when challenged.
Any thoughts on that “Muslim” you were so convinced was driving the Glasgow bin lorry?
‘pointless debating with someone so blinded by their own bias and prejudices that they make up works of fiction when challenged.’
Well yes Albaman…..as illustrated by your rapid change of subject and your false claim about a Muslim bin lorry driver.
Don’t think you’ll find anywhere that I claimed the bin driver was a muslim…in fact the opposite…..but why let the facts get in the way of your story?
Your constant resort to half truths and strawman arguments lets you down Albaman.
Any thoughts on that “Muslim” you were so convinced was driving the Glasgow bin lorry?
I was temporarily confused by all the contradictory facts, but in the end, deduction would established that the Glasgow bin lorry driver was attacked by two Muslim bin men in the cab, and that the Muslim bin lorry driver story and heart problem story were pushed by the MI5 people who put that D Notice on my sources. This would make all the other known facts fit the story, including my sourcing problems after that D Notice incident.
Albaman, were there two other people in the truck that crashed? Glasgow City Council have stated that they would never give up the names of the driver or the other two occupants of the lorry. It was also stated that the driver was seen slumped over the steering wheel, photographic evidence of the lorry just before it came to rest shows that this was not the case as it shows the driver in a normal driving position and with the truck showing its brake lights on as it came to rest. So who were the other two in the truck?
Wondering if the law of unintended consequences is kicking in?
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/stephen-woolfe-mep-we-must-look-at-what-a-22m-bung-from-the-eu-has-done-at-the-bbc/#more-20540
Following the money can often lead in interesting directions when high horses get mounted and claims of editorial integrity, transparency & trust scattered around.
I’ve just posted those figures on the Radio Devon facebook pages.
This tweet by Media Lens is worth tracking down:
Hi @simonjenkins4 Think you need to see this screenshot sent over by @frankieboyle http://t.co/vYvf125h9C
If you want evidence of how left the bBC are, check out the tailfin of the plane in the picture.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31530840
bBC sponsors the Russian Airforce.
At the height of the “Cold War ” the” Soviet Air Force” use to change the tail fin marking`s now & again to make it look like they had more serviceable aircraft than they actually had. We were , however, onto that ruse .
Interesting, then we should see the markings change from time to time by other likely candidates, ‘Guardian’ ‘Channel4’ for example.