4 ms·

> So they're counting money granted by a wealthy donor as profit. And without that, they would still be losing money. I actually read that as "we are part of a

> So they're counting money granted by a wealthy donor as profit. And without that, they would still be losing money. I actually read that as "we are part of a trust that gives 25-30m, and if we didn't need to give these payments we'd be making a profit". Or simply put: No, they are not counting recieving money, they're actually excluding giving money.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
asaph 7y ago
Thank you for this correction. I amended my original comment.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Good on you for being willing to say you made an error publicly. (This isn't meant to mean anything sarcastic, I believe that the humility and cognizance to be able to do something as simply as to say 'whoops my bad let me fix that' publicly is increasingly rare and wish to praise it whenever it happens as a brave and ethical behavior.)
ddeck 7y ago
I think they are actually receiving the funds. It is worded quite ambiguously, but I think what it actually means is that they receive GBP25-30 million a year from the Scott Trust, which they use for expenses and capital costs. The article on the same topic in the Guardian itself a couple of day ago states: "Guardian News & Media is owned by the wider Guardian Media Group, which in turn is controlled by the not-for-profit Scott Trust, named after the newspaper’s former proprietors. The Scott Trust endowment, built up through the sale of former assets such as AutoTrader, produces an annual return of between £25m and £30m without depleting the main investment, which it allows to be spent by Guardian Media Group to subsidise ongoing operations." https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/01/guardian-breaks-even-helped-by-success-of-supporter-strategy https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/01/guardian-break...
- arcticfox 7y ago
  Putting the money in an endowment is shockingly foresighted. I almost feel like good journalism needs that type of support going forward, and it seems the Guardian gave it to themselves. (The alternative would be inviting in people like Bezos, but that has the potential of strings attached.)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

asaph 7y ago

Thank you for this correction. I amended my original comment.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Good on you for being willing to say you made an error publicly. (This isn't meant to mean anything sarcastic, I believe that the humility and cognizance to be able to do something as simply as to say 'whoops my bad let me fix that' publicly is increasingly rare and wish to praise it whenever it happens as a brave and ethical behavior.)

ddeck 7y ago

I think they are actually receiving the funds. It is worded quite ambiguously, but I think what it actually means is that they receive GBP25-30 million a year from the Scott Trust, which they use for expenses and capital costs. The article on the same topic in the Guardian itself a couple of day ago states: "Guardian News & Media is owned by the wider Guardian Media Group, which in turn is controlled by the not-for-profit Scott Trust, named after the newspaper’s former proprietors. The Scott Trust endowment, built up through the sale of former assets such as AutoTrader, produces an annual return of between £25m and £30m without depleting the main investment, which it allows to be spent by Guardian Media Group to subsidise ongoing operations." https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/01/guardian-breaks-even-helped-by-success-of-supporter-strategy https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/01/guardian-break...

arcticfox 7y ago
Putting the money in an endowment is shockingly foresighted. I almost feel like good journalism needs that type of support going forward, and it seems the Guardian gave it to themselves. (The alternative would be inviting in people like Bezos, but that has the potential of strings attached.)