Many may have seen this popular post here about an article in The Guardian reporting on Bill Gates giving all his money to his own political machine and calling it charity. An important detail that was missed is that Gates' foundation gave The Guardian a $3.5 million grant spread out in allotments from 2020 to 2023.
The outlet doesn't disclose this blatant conflict of interest in the page. For some reason, I expected The Guardian to be better than a public relations front.
For some reason, I expected The Guardian to be better than a public relations front.
Take the liberal that lives in your head and smother it with a pillow
they reason anyone would think otherwise is because they are the best at what they do
They had to rehabilitate their image somehow. Reminder the Bill Gates was once considered an asshole by pretty much everyone. I'm surprised no one has dropped the relevant Citations Needed eps yet.
yeah
gates used to pop up every couple of months for something
and branson and sugar maybe once per month
definitely only started to be a thing since twitter pretty muchIt was when the entire international finance community realised that social media news about billionaires drove financial speculation. Once that happened they all became a united group of online shills for the people involved in whatever thing they are investing in.
The outlet doesn’t disclose this blatant conflict of interest in the page.
They only mention that below articles paid for by that grant. Where it is not actually disclosing a conflict of interest, but implicitly telling us that Bill Gates' generosity paid for that piece of journalism. These articles aren't even half bad, btw. They tend to be written by younger authors not yet fully deformed by the rest of the Guardian staff, they tend to slant more to the left than what the Guardian usually publishes, they are well-researched and exclusive content. So they really make Bill Gates appear as the benevolent philanthropist. That the actual cost of these articles is that the rest of the Guardian's reporting takes on a pro-Gates bias is something we have to find out for ourselves.
Good point. The author of this article doesn't have any notable history of problematic reportage. It's not as clear-cut as I assumed in the post.
