4 ms·

I think the way you connected Unherd with Nigel Farage is a pinpointed, ill-intentioned way of disparaging a site and I think if you want to be honest, you know

I think the way you connected Unherd with Nigel Farage is a pinpointed, ill-intentioned way of disparaging a site and I think if you want to be honest, you know that's why you did it. It is pretty normal not to broadcast your source of funding for a business.

woodruffw 5y ago
> It is pretty normal not to broadcast your source of funding for a business. Not only is it extremely normal, but it's also a time honored tradition in good journalism and civic mindedness. In another era we called it "following the money."
wpietri 5y ago
It is quite normal for journalists to disclose conflicts of interest, which especially includes ownership/funding. For example, The Economist: https://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownership.html https://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/owners... Or Pro Publica: https://www.propublica.org/supporters https://www.propublica.org/supporters The Washington Post gives their whole ownership history, including Jeff Bezos's purchase of it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/company-history/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/company-history/ That these folks aren't so forthright should concern anybody. And why should mentioning Farage be seen as disparaging by UnHerd's Daddy Warbucks? He liked the guy enough to put £10 million into getting him and others on the air, so I presume he's proud of the association. It's true I don't like Farage or his politics, but that doesn't oblige me to hide the name of the biggest star of the network that is the other major media effort of UnHerd's funder.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]