Opinion From the Center

During the holiday season, humans want to give.

While for 50 weeks of the year, we race to out-capitalize each other, it’s the spirit of the season that gets us to open our hearts and wallets deeper than usual – and give gifts, time, and money to loved ones and the less fortunate. Unfortunately, some take advantage of that spirit in misleading or manipulative ways.

In the flurry of giving that marked the year’s end, one news outlet that was not going to miss out was The Guardian (Left bias). For the last few weeks of 2024, logging on to read an article from The Guardian meant you would be met with their sitewide fundraising plea. 

On December 19, the plea read: “This is what we’re up against. From Elon Musk to the Murdochs, billionaire owners control much of the information that reaches the public. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of bad actors are spreading disinformation that threatens democracy. The Guardian is different. Thanks to reader support, we publish free, trustworthy journalism - and stay fiercely independent. Please help protect the truly free press by supporting us today. It takes just 37 seconds. Thank you.”

A sensational selection of photos accompanied the plea – Megyn Kelly (Right bias), Tucker Carlson (Right bias), Alex Jones, X CEO Elon Musk, Fox News (Right bias) owner Rupert Murdoch, and Fox News host Sean Hannity (Right bias) were all pictured in grayscale amidst a series of dark red stars that evoke imagery of the 20th-century Soviet Union or Communist China.

To the right of the plea was a field for readers to enter their credit card information, with a suggested selection of a $15 monthly recurring donation. According to the ad, the site was already in surplus of its $4 million goal by $166,646.

Though its clear bias against right-wing commentators wasn’t surprising, The Guardian’s claim that it’s “fiercely independent” raised a brow. Absent from the advertisement was any link to provide readers with more context on the publication’s financial backing.

According to Wikipedia, The Guardian is owned by The Guardian Media Group (GMG), which is “wholly owned by the Scott Trust Limited, which exists to secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity. The Group's annual report (for the year ending 2 April 2023) indicated that the Scott Trust Endowment Fund was valued at £1.24 billion.”

While there may be a degree of separation, this means The Guardian is backed by a $1.56 billion endowment.

Ironically, some of The Guardian’s stated antagonists, Megyn Kelly and Alex Jones, host and fund their own programs. Tucker Carlson has received outside funding, but is the only contributor to and primary editor of his program. One could reasonably consider these commentators to be “independent.”

Carlson and Kelly built a share of their wealth and ability to launch their own ventures through stints with Fox News of course, but it raises questions about what “independent” media truly is.

Should an outlet be viewed as independent if it’s backed by a large endowment fund, or should it be one that’s funded by readers alone? What about one that is backed by just one billionaire owner? And what degree of editorial independence from its financial backing should media maintain to be considered truly independent?

For a media outlet that claims to be “independent” while sounding the alarm on “bad actors” who are “spreading disinformation,” The Guardian is arguably spreading disinformation itself with how it frames its own funding.

It’s expected that a fundraising plea – a marketing material – would be more biased than other published works, but as an organization that claims to produce “trustworthy journalism,” its plea stands in contrast with its stated product.

Considering its vast pool of resources and dominance of Google News results, (outside of the Israel-Palestine issue, where it’s resoundingly biased in favor of the Palestinian cause) there’s not much to differentiate The Guardian from other mainstream sources like CNN or Fox. Yet in its plea, it frames itself as the antidote to billionaire Rupert Murdoch and his spawn.

And the plea didn’t stop there.

On December 21, the publication claimed it had not yet met its fundraising goal, initially stated to be $4M, but now raised to $5M.

This appeal was without its chosen right-wing agitators and read: “Final days of our appeal. We're funded by readers, not billionaires - which means we can publish factual journalism with no outside influence.” 

Again, this is arguably disinformation, considering Guardian Media Group is owned by a trust with a $1.5 billion endowment. 

The Guardian’s 2023-2024 financial report suggests it spent about $45 million last year, presumably from this endowment, to cover its losses. The claim that it is not funded by “billionaires” needs context at the least.

On December 30, The Guardian was still running the ad with Musk and company and said it had raised $4,676,030 of its $5 million goal. This ad was slightly different though, as it said it was in the “final 2 days” of its appeal.

Nine days since The Guardian was in the “final days” of its appeal, it was now in the “final 2” days of its appeal, meaning its efforts would end on December 31.

Yet as I logged all of this on January 1, The Guardian asked me again to donate to its cause.

“Never see this box again,” read the headline. “Did you know you can make all our website fundraising requests disappear? Without a billionaire bankrolling us, we rely on readers to chip in to fund our work.”

The Guardian was $153,834 in surplus of its stated goal of $5,000,000.

As of January 9, The Guardian is still running the ad featuring Musk and Murdoch, without a financial goal or time limit attached to the plea.

AllSides also publishes fundraising pleas on our site – we’re funded by offering services to publications and other organizations, through Sustaining Memberships, and a very small portion of our revenue comes through advertisements. 

We’re a small, scrappy team that works this job every day because we are passionate about our mission and society – from left to right and everywhere in between. We appreciate our readers who donate and help us do this job. But we don’t deceive them about our financial backing in our fundraising pleas, which are full of information about what we do.

As we say at AllSides, don’t be fooled by media bias. Even marketing pleas from news outlets should be questioned. If something is sensational or doesn’t appear to add up, it might be worth a deeper look – especially if it relies on villainizing its competitors to get you to support its self-proclaimed, noble cause.

Andy Gorel is a News Editor and Bias Analyst at AllSides. He has a Center bias.

This piece was edited and reviewed by Julie Mastrine, Director of Marketing and Media Bias Ratings (Lean Right bias), Clare Ashcraft Bridging Coordinator and Media Analyst (Center bias), Evan Wagner, News Editor and Product Manager (Lean Left bias), Olivia Geno, News and Bias Assistant (Lean Right bias), Malayna Bizier, News Analyst and Social Media Editor (Lean Right bias), and Henry A. Brechter, Editor-in-chief (Center bias).