12 ms·

I was hoping this article went deeper into the Guardian's somewhat unusual ownership model, because I find it interesting and would love to learn more. The Gua

by yen223 2y ago

I was hoping this article went deeper into the Guardian's somewhat unusual ownership model, because I find it interesting and would love to learn more. The Guardian is owned by (and I think largely funded by?) a trust that was intentionally set up in a way to ensure no commercial interest could interfere with the paper. How well it achieved that goal is, of course, debatable, but it has survived nearly a century in that form.

sambeau 2y ago
Yes, The Scott Trust. You can read more about it here: https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust
- johnea 2y ago
  And of course, there's always wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited Bozo could easily establish a similar trust to support the Wash Post in perpetuity. But clearly he has other motives.
- mushufasa 2y ago
  Here's how this happened as I understand it. The original founder of the guardian, Taylor, ran it like a business. While today journalism struggles to make money, in the 1800s news was lucrative. In his will, Taylor carved out a sweetheart deal (right of first refusal) to sell the paper to CP Scott, a progressive Liberal politician, and also his nephew. After running the paper for many years, CP Scott's will named his two sons to inherit. Both of whom worked as editors on the daily. In a freak turn of events, both CP Scott and one of the sons died within a few months. The remaining son was concerned about paying double for the hefty inheritance tax at the time ("death tax"). The death tax could be so large as to force a sale of the paper, to create liquidity to cover the tax. I guess it was a tax on unrealized gains! The remaining son, John, cleverly found a workaround to avoid the silly death tax: by renouncing his ownership and transferring the business to a Trust. Since he worked at the paper as editor, giving up ownership was a clever tradoff that actually gave him de facto tenure as editor, by making his day job more stable. This is all to say: the guardian became a nonprofit-like trust at a point in time it was already a stable business, with capital to self-finance. This was not a case of a independently wealthy businessman creating a foundation to create a paper from scratch (like many created universities). The Scott trust was created by journalists for journalists, at a unique point in time where journalists had money to self-finance. Motivated not by some idealistic vision but by a more practical desire to avoid a hefty tax on unrealized gains.
  - lifeisstillgood 2y ago
    >>> The Scott trust was created by journalists for journalists, at a unique point in time where journalists had money to self-finance Where is the trust created by coders for coders at a time uniquely profitable for coders?
    - mushufasa 2y ago
      Honestly things like this can also be an argument FOR crazy high death taxes. Something similar happened in a history podcast I heard about Porche, which is still owned by the original family. At one point, germany told them their tax on ownership gains is 90%. So instead, they decided they would just re-invest into the business R&D to write off the taxes instead. That gave us the invention of Porche's Racing team. source: https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/porsche-with-doug-demuro https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/porsche-with-doug-demuro
      - laborcontract 2y ago
        You can get unintended consequences from this, like forcing the increase of nepotism. If you look at South Korea, for instance, the Chaebol, despite facing some of the highest inheritance taxes in the world, still have a grip on power. How? You keep the kids in management, you encourage lots of cross holdings between corporations so that even though the kids’ share falls, you enforce power through social contracts in the upper strata of classes that is horrible for shareholders and innovation as a society. That said Porsche indeed is an exceptional company in many ways in both the innovative end as well as their holdings structure.
        robocat 2y ago
        Strong negative incentives create weird workarounds. > you enforce power through social contracts in the upper strata of classes Do you have any links that explain this? I'm planning to visit South Korea so understanding some of the politics is interesting...
- xenophon 2y ago
  For more on how this model might have changed journalism for the better, this is a great old article from the former CIO of the Yale Endowment: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/opinion/28swensen.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/opinion/28swensen.html
- gadders 2y ago
  Yes, partially created to save taxes or a forced sale.
facile3232 2y ago
> to ensure no commercial interest could interfere with the paper. How do they explain their taking ads, then? https://advertising.theguardian.com https://advertising.theguardian.com There's zero assurance that they could provide that would convince me this doesn't come with influence over editorial matters. It's the same problem NPR has (shoutout to the 'old "National Petroleum Radio" moniker from the invasions of the oughts). EDIT: you -> they
- protocolture 2y ago
  Well theres not going to be shareholder direction to conform to advertisers wishes. And assuming the trust is well funded, they may not feel compelled to do so. That said, its very possible for not for profit entities to go very wrong so you cant rule it out absolutely.
  - facile3232 2y ago
    Fair enough, the trust is certainly a stronger demonstration of commitment than most can offer.
- xenophon 2y ago
  Universities with large endowments still charge tuition. The available proceeds from appreciation of the trust may not be enough to cover their operating expenses.
  - facile3232 2y ago
    Universities aren't exactly a great model of freedom from private interests. And it's not clear why many of them do still charge tuition—i just assumed it was some effort to emphasize classism in a world where they also want to look gracious for paying for poor people. And believe me, for the colleges I examined this at, tuition was a rounding error compared to the return on the endowment. It is just for aesthetics of charging students in a uniquely american show of stupidity.
- vidarh 2y ago
scarab92 2y ago
I’m not sure that it’s ownership is the reason for The Guardians success. NYT has also been successful with a more traditional ownership model. Their success, I suspect, is due to being early to shift from addressing a particular geographic market, to addressing an ideological market, after the internet destroyed the geographical barriers to entry. I suspect this internet driven incentive to focus on ideological markets is a big part of why politics in most countries has become so partisan. When newspapers focused on a particular geography, but had limited completion, they had an incentive to avoid becoming partisan because that would only serve to limit their addressable market.
- harvey9 2y ago
  The guardian always addressed a left of centre audience even before the internet. The Telegraph a right of centre one. The print advert market used to sustain that.
- pjc50 2y ago
  UK press has basically always been partisan, which was why the Daily Mail was publishing pro-Hitler articles on behalf of its owner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Harmsworth,_1st_Viscount_Rothermere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Harmsworth,_1st_Viscoun...
  - damagednoob 2y ago
    Or The Guardian supporting the Confederacy[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#History
- lordnacho 2y ago
  I think a big part of it is that the internet made the existing leaders into massive winners, a bit like how the teams at the top if the first division managed to cement themselves in the premiership when that happened. If you were to name some important newspapers in 1995, you'd probably also have the Guardian, NYT, WaPo, on your list. They just pulled away from the pack due to the was reputation works in the internet age.
croisillon 2y ago
I never really looked into the details but i believe Le Monde Diplomatique is built a similar way with their foundation Les Amis du Monde Diplomatique
DeathArrow 2y ago
Not journalism but I think Ikea and Rolex are owned by some trusts, too.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Ikea trust is more of a shell game to keep the family in charge while avoiding tax and general scrutiny and liability.
- fransje26 2y ago
  And Bosch. Edit: Scratch that. Bosch is owned by a foundation.
- erk__ 2y ago
  In Denmark it is not too uncommon for the larger companies, JP/Politikens Hus which publishes two of the largest Danish newspapers is trust owned. Novo Nordisk and Mærsk which are the two largest danish companies are trust owned as well.
- ericjmorey 2y ago
  The Ikea Trust is for the benefit of the family that controls it.
veunes 2y ago
The Scott Trust model is fascinating and doesn't get nearly enough attention, especially given how rare that kind of structure is in modern media
nobodywillobsrv 2y ago
yes it's a bit dodgy. the guardian operates as a sort of propaganda magazine although it tends to have fairly high quality stuff scattered in there.
- jampekka 2y ago
  A propaganda machine? It's an openly center-left newspaper.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    It's rarely "center-left", more clearly left-wing. Anyway, the very clear ideological orientation, even openly so, is what makes it a "propaganda magazine" of sort (like all ideologically orientated newspapers). I find it very similar to the Daily Mail on the other side of the spectrum, actually. I think the readership is more educated on average so it is more "intellectual" but overall it is the same type of highly orientated take on things. Interesting that articles from The Guardian appear so often here ;) Edit: It's saddening that this apparently cannot be said or discussed. Or is it a superiority complex because I compared it to the Daily Mail? (Oh dear, what have I done ;) )
    - chgs 2y ago
      Terms like “left” and “centre” lose all meaning internationally. It’s clear to everyone in the ripe that the democrats are on the right leaning side of “centre right”, but half of America thinks they are “far left”. A party that can’t even implement a national health service.
      - mytailorisrich 2y ago
        I am not talking "internationally". Within the UK and European context, The Guardian is left-wing and has many very left-wing columnists. Do read the public comments on articles, and you'll see this is the readership, too (at least the "vocal" ones, perhaps). Sure overall it is not as left-wing as, say, Le Monde Diplomatique in France (someone mentioned it in another comment) but still. Overall, Wikipedia is quite accurate: "The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion, and the term "Guardian reader" is used to imply a stereotype of a person with modern progressive, left-wing or "politically correct" views." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian
s_dev 2y ago
This is the same as the Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/about-us/the-irish-times-trust/ https://www.irishtimes.com/about-us/the-irish-times-trust/
- rsynnott 2y ago
  Yup; it's a different legal structure (the IT one is a CLG), but same intent. I think there are a few other similar things around.
fergie 2y ago
The Guardian is fairly protected from commercial influence but its not that well protected against elitism, which unfortunately still means a lot in the UK today. This is why the Guardian is simultaneously "progressive", yet also at times openly hostile to the working class. Its "progressive but not working class" stance promotes identity politics, and probably does more to pit left-wing voters against each other than any other UK-publication. That said, I am a subscribe to the Guardian Weekly which I supplement with the Spectator, a traditionally conservative publication, in order to get a decent balance of UK news.
- gadders 2y ago
  I believe I am right in saying that every editor of the Guardian has been privately educated, apart from the last one.
  - fergie 2y ago
    Yes, and private education is a prime example of an area where the Guardian "inexplicably" pulls their punches.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rc_mob 2y ago
ok ya'll talked me into it, I'll setup a recurring donation
yeahitsgreat12 2y ago
Yeah right. And pigs just flew past my window. Because billionaires definitely don't pre-hide their fingerprints in some shady 'independent trust' while we all pretend the article just wrote itself out of the goodness of corporate hearts.

by yen223 2y ago

sambeau 2y ago

Yes, The Scott Trust. You can read more about it here: https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust

johnea 2y ago
And of course, there's always wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited Bozo could easily establish a similar trust to support the Wash Post in perpetuity. But clearly he has other motives.
mushufasa 2y ago
Here's how this happened as I understand it. The original founder of the guardian, Taylor, ran it like a business. While today journalism struggles to make money, in the 1800s news was lucrative. In his will, Taylor carved out a sweetheart deal (right of first refusal) to sell the paper to CP Scott, a progressive Liberal politician, and also his nephew. After running the paper for many years, CP Scott's will named his two sons to inherit. Both of whom worked as editors on the daily. In a freak turn of events, both CP Scott and one of the sons died within a few months. The remaining son was concerned about paying double for the hefty inheritance tax at the time ("death tax"). The death tax could be so large as to force a sale of the paper, to create liquidity to cover the tax. I guess it was a tax on unrealized gains! The remaining son, John, cleverly found a workaround to avoid the silly death tax: by renouncing his ownership and transferring the business to a Trust. Since he worked at the paper as editor, giving up ownership was a clever tradoff that actually gave him de facto tenure as editor, by making his day job more stable. This is all to say: the guardian became a nonprofit-like trust at a point in time it was already a stable business, with capital to self-finance. This was not a case of a independently wealthy businessman creating a foundation to create a paper from scratch (like many created universities). The Scott trust was created by journalists for journalists, at a unique point in time where journalists had money to self-finance. Motivated not by some idealistic vision but by a more practical desire to avoid a hefty tax on unrealized gains.
- lifeisstillgood 2y ago
  >>> The Scott trust was created by journalists for journalists, at a unique point in time where journalists had money to self-finance Where is the trust created by coders for coders at a time uniquely profitable for coders?
  - mushufasa 2y ago
    Honestly things like this can also be an argument FOR crazy high death taxes. Something similar happened in a history podcast I heard about Porche, which is still owned by the original family. At one point, germany told them their tax on ownership gains is 90%. So instead, they decided they would just re-invest into the business R&D to write off the taxes instead. That gave us the invention of Porche's Racing team. source: https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/porsche-with-doug-demuro https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/porsche-with-doug-demuro
    - laborcontract 2y ago
      You can get unintended consequences from this, like forcing the increase of nepotism. If you look at South Korea, for instance, the Chaebol, despite facing some of the highest inheritance taxes in the world, still have a grip on power. How? You keep the kids in management, you encourage lots of cross holdings between corporations so that even though the kids’ share falls, you enforce power through social contracts in the upper strata of classes that is horrible for shareholders and innovation as a society. That said Porsche indeed is an exceptional company in many ways in both the innovative end as well as their holdings structure.
      - robocat 2y ago
        Strong negative incentives create weird workarounds. > you enforce power through social contracts in the upper strata of classes Do you have any links that explain this? I'm planning to visit South Korea so understanding some of the politics is interesting...
xenophon 2y ago
For more on how this model might have changed journalism for the better, this is a great old article from the former CIO of the Yale Endowment: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/opinion/28swensen.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/opinion/28swensen.html
gadders 2y ago
Yes, partially created to save taxes or a forced sale.

facile3232 2y ago

> to ensure no commercial interest could interfere with the paper. How do they explain their taking ads, then? https://advertising.theguardian.com https://advertising.theguardian.com There's zero assurance that they could provide that would convince me this doesn't come with influence over editorial matters. It's the same problem NPR has (shoutout to the 'old "National Petroleum Radio" moniker from the invasions of the oughts). EDIT: you -> they

protocolture 2y ago
Well theres not going to be shareholder direction to conform to advertisers wishes. And assuming the trust is well funded, they may not feel compelled to do so. That said, its very possible for not for profit entities to go very wrong so you cant rule it out absolutely.
- facile3232 2y ago
  Fair enough, the trust is certainly a stronger demonstration of commitment than most can offer.
xenophon 2y ago
Universities with large endowments still charge tuition. The available proceeds from appreciation of the trust may not be enough to cover their operating expenses.
- facile3232 2y ago
  Universities aren't exactly a great model of freedom from private interests. And it's not clear why many of them do still charge tuition—i just assumed it was some effort to emphasize classism in a world where they also want to look gracious for paying for poor people. And believe me, for the colleges I examined this at, tuition was a rounding error compared to the return on the endowment. It is just for aesthetics of charging students in a uniquely american show of stupidity.
vidarh 2y ago

scarab92 2y ago

I’m not sure that it’s ownership is the reason for The Guardians success. NYT has also been successful with a more traditional ownership model. Their success, I suspect, is due to being early to shift from addressing a particular geographic market, to addressing an ideological market, after the internet destroyed the geographical barriers to entry. I suspect this internet driven incentive to focus on ideological markets is a big part of why politics in most countries has become so partisan. When newspapers focused on a particular geography, but had limited completion, they had an incentive to avoid becoming partisan because that would only serve to limit their addressable market.

harvey9 2y ago
The guardian always addressed a left of centre audience even before the internet. The Telegraph a right of centre one. The print advert market used to sustain that.
pjc50 2y ago
UK press has basically always been partisan, which was why the Daily Mail was publishing pro-Hitler articles on behalf of its owner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Harmsworth,_1st_Viscount_Rothermere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Harmsworth,_1st_Viscoun...
- damagednoob 2y ago
  Or The Guardian supporting the Confederacy[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#History
lordnacho 2y ago
I think a big part of it is that the internet made the existing leaders into massive winners, a bit like how the teams at the top if the first division managed to cement themselves in the premiership when that happened. If you were to name some important newspapers in 1995, you'd probably also have the Guardian, NYT, WaPo, on your list. They just pulled away from the pack due to the was reputation works in the internet age.

croisillon 2y ago

I never really looked into the details but i believe Le Monde Diplomatique is built a similar way with their foundation Les Amis du Monde Diplomatique

DeathArrow 2y ago

Not journalism but I think Ikea and Rolex are owned by some trusts, too.

actionfromafar 2y ago
Ikea trust is more of a shell game to keep the family in charge while avoiding tax and general scrutiny and liability.
fransje26 2y ago
And Bosch. Edit: Scratch that. Bosch is owned by a foundation.
erk__ 2y ago
In Denmark it is not too uncommon for the larger companies, JP/Politikens Hus which publishes two of the largest Danish newspapers is trust owned. Novo Nordisk and Mærsk which are the two largest danish companies are trust owned as well.
ericjmorey 2y ago
The Ikea Trust is for the benefit of the family that controls it.

veunes 2y ago

The Scott Trust model is fascinating and doesn't get nearly enough attention, especially given how rare that kind of structure is in modern media

nobodywillobsrv 2y ago

yes it's a bit dodgy. the guardian operates as a sort of propaganda magazine although it tends to have fairly high quality stuff scattered in there.

jampekka 2y ago
A propaganda machine? It's an openly center-left newspaper.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  It's rarely "center-left", more clearly left-wing. Anyway, the very clear ideological orientation, even openly so, is what makes it a "propaganda magazine" of sort (like all ideologically orientated newspapers). I find it very similar to the Daily Mail on the other side of the spectrum, actually. I think the readership is more educated on average so it is more "intellectual" but overall it is the same type of highly orientated take on things. Interesting that articles from The Guardian appear so often here ;) Edit: It's saddening that this apparently cannot be said or discussed. Or is it a superiority complex because I compared it to the Daily Mail? (Oh dear, what have I done ;) )
  - chgs 2y ago
    Terms like “left” and “centre” lose all meaning internationally. It’s clear to everyone in the ripe that the democrats are on the right leaning side of “centre right”, but half of America thinks they are “far left”. A party that can’t even implement a national health service.
    - mytailorisrich 2y ago
      I am not talking "internationally". Within the UK and European context, The Guardian is left-wing and has many very left-wing columnists. Do read the public comments on articles, and you'll see this is the readership, too (at least the "vocal" ones, perhaps). Sure overall it is not as left-wing as, say, Le Monde Diplomatique in France (someone mentioned it in another comment) but still. Overall, Wikipedia is quite accurate: "The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion, and the term "Guardian reader" is used to imply a stereotype of a person with modern progressive, left-wing or "politically correct" views." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

s_dev 2y ago

This is the same as the Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/about-us/the-irish-times-trust/ https://www.irishtimes.com/about-us/the-irish-times-trust/

rsynnott 2y ago
Yup; it's a different legal structure (the IT one is a CLG), but same intent. I think there are a few other similar things around.

fergie 2y ago

The Guardian is fairly protected from commercial influence but its not that well protected against elitism, which unfortunately still means a lot in the UK today. This is why the Guardian is simultaneously "progressive", yet also at times openly hostile to the working class. Its "progressive but not working class" stance promotes identity politics, and probably does more to pit left-wing voters against each other than any other UK-publication. That said, I am a subscribe to the Guardian Weekly which I supplement with the Spectator, a traditionally conservative publication, in order to get a decent balance of UK news.

gadders 2y ago
I believe I am right in saying that every editor of the Guardian has been privately educated, apart from the last one.
- fergie 2y ago
  Yes, and private education is a prime example of an area where the Guardian "inexplicably" pulls their punches.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rc_mob 2y ago

ok ya'll talked me into it, I'll setup a recurring donation

yeahitsgreat12 2y ago

Yeah right. And pigs just flew past my window. Because billionaires definitely don't pre-hide their fingerprints in some shady 'independent trust' while we all pretend the article just wrote itself out of the goodness of corporate hearts.