That’s code for, “if we publish something that the foundation dislikes, they will cut our funding.” There is no such thing as editorial independence when it comes to funding, unless it’s done anonymously or automatically.
There's quite a difference between not being able to piss of the sponsor too much and "the Bill Gates' foundation had The Guardian publish a piece", which was the claim.
The article deviates enough from the usual tone of The Guardian for one to suspect that the latter is indeed the case, and the title change corroborates this suspicion. Finally, "not being able to piss of the sponsor too much" is already fishy journalism.
Comments
I couldn't find any reference to the Gates foundation on that page. What makes you say they had the Guardian publish it?
There is a big logo immediately beneath the headline. If you click on it, it says the foundation partially funds the website.
I missed that, thanks for pointing it out. However, following the "about this content" link under the logo, the following is stated:
That’s code for, “if we publish something that the foundation dislikes, they will cut our funding.” There is no such thing as editorial independence when it comes to funding, unless it’s done anonymously or automatically.
There's quite a difference between not being able to piss of the sponsor too much and "the Bill Gates' foundation had The Guardian publish a piece", which was the claim.
The article deviates enough from the usual tone of The Guardian for one to suspect that the latter is indeed the case, and the title change corroborates this suspicion. Finally, "not being able to piss of the sponsor too much" is already fishy journalism.