As the Guardian announces the 'sale' of the 233-year-old Observer to Tortoise Media, I wave hello to my new bosses (hi!) with an investigation of their finances.
This is extremely murky indeed. I'm a longtime reader of both the Guardian and Observer and I'm feeling that if the Scott Trust and / or the editor-in-chief don't make a full disclosure to their readers it will simply add to the existing feeling that the Guardian in particular has not for a long time been entirely open with the public about its collective thinking and, more importantly, what it doesn't print and why (I'm thinking in particular of its many shortcomings in the past 15 months over the Israeli-perpetrated genocide in Gaza, as well as the murderous activities in the West Bank, but there are many other issues much wider than those).
The unforgivable mistreatment of some of the Guardian's most distinguished journalists comes to mind (several of them, I'm sad to say, finding refuge in rightwing papers, even if they haven't compromised their political affiliations, but it's shameful they had to save their livelihoods in that way). I have long thought that Viner was always the wrong person for the job and I've seen or heard nothing recently to make me change my mind.
I know I've said elsewhere that both the Guardian and the Observer are pale shadows of what they used to be (my reading of them goes back to the 1950s, especially in my youth, the Observer) but I've also said that there are journalists on both papers of outstanding brilliance and distinction and I hope and believe that at least the Guardian (who knows what will become of the Observer now in the light of events) can return to its former glory (it may need a complete change of editorial team).
As a U.S.-based reader of the Guardian, this brings sadness to my heart, whilst at the same time, lending some confusion to their perpetual requests for money to keep them “independent,” and “not owned by billionaires.” Makes one wonder…
Thanks so much for your reporting on this Carole, which has been almost entirely absent from the Guardian's site. Makes me quite concerned about where one can get independent reporting by professional journalists without big oil being involved.
I've become a paid subscriber of your substack today. Keep it up!
Thank you, Carole, for your impeccable reporting as usual. I am dispirited and quite frankly upset by what's going on. I have always read the Guardian, and the Observer on Sundays, convinced of the philosophy behind the Scott Trust, to do things properly, transparently and clearly, with care for climate change and all that that implies. I donate regularly to the Guardian, I have even published a couple of articles online, but now I am doubtful.
I am grateful for your depth of investigation which is now more urgent than ever.
Did it. Felt a bit bereft in unsubscribing from the Guardian but have subscribed here and to a few others and have money left to continue to subscribe to independent journalists. Will re-evaluate after a year and see where things are at.
A clear account of unclear dealings. What I do not understand is why the Scott trust is giving the Observer away (can that even be considered a legal commercial transaction?) or what benefit they get instead?
Not sure if they're actually of any use, but most of those deleted articles on the Tortoise site are archived on the Wayback Machine if anyone wants to see them:
If they basically gave The Observer away, I wish that an organization that believes in the values that the UK was built on had been able to take it over. I just officially subscribed to The Guardian because frankly it does a better job of covering the USA than any of our newspapers. Because it’s not in the USA, I hoped that there would be less anticipatory obedience. That was dumb because obviously this is a loosely knit international coalition of autocrats, billionaires, corps &,criminals, cooperatively working globally to be freed from pesky nation-states so they can financially interact with each other untraceably, and with zero accountability.
I used to call them the three 'U's, Sandy - the Unseen, the Unelected, and the Unaccountable. But from someone else via Carole recently, we were gifted a much better a two-word term which I have now totally blanked on. Steve 'always helpful' B.
It was always something I offered for free for anyone to use in trying to describe a lot of stuff which is hideously complex. So you haven't stolen anything from me, Sara, and you are welcome to use as and where you would like to without any acknowledgement, reference or credit required.
Thankyou. I now have an excuse and a forum on which to publish my unacknowledged letter of a few days ago to the Guardian …
"
I’m just an ordinary Guardian supporter, finally arriving “home” after a journey starting from The Times (from 1966), and passing through the Independent (while it still was). Many of the arguments put forward by the Scott Trust since their deal with Tortoise became public knowledge seem persuasive, and Tortoise, at least according to their website, certainly “talk the talk”. Why, then, if the deal was so good, were Guardian/Observer stakeholders — particularly journalists, even the editor — not kept in the picture ? Why does the Trust insist that all were consulted when they were clearly not ? These questions throw a lot of doubt on those otherwise persuasive arguments ! More practically, many questions have been raised after the deal was announced and cynically finalised while being protested. I would pick out the proposed £25m “new investment” … on the face of it that sum seems grossly insufficient for the proposed “rejuvenation”, but, whether or not that assumption is wrong, it is clear that the Trust could easily afford to rectify past mistakes and update the Observer brand themselves. After all, they implicitly took on that responsibility when they bought the title.
I'm a long term subscriber to the Guardian/Observer from New Zealand. I've always admired the publications' independent centrist journalism. What I fail to understand is why the Observer was "sold" when none of the background articles support its "sale". I am most disappointed in the Scott Trust's actions in this matter. The staff and the readers have been sabotaged by the Trust.
My response to a non-response from 'Mike, Customer Services Representative'
This is exactly the kind of corporate speak I do not expect from the Guardian. I read your newspaper. I have seen the communiques from the Scott Trust. I am a subscriber. So no, as far as I can see you have made no effort to respond to my query.
I do not know the pros and cons of this deal. I do know that the Guardian and Observer journalists, who I have been encouraged to trust by the newspaper and the Scott Trust and my own experience, have raised all kinds of objects and have asked for a pause in negotiations. So have previous editors and media experts. See the link I sent from prize winning journalist Carol Cadwaldre https://broligarchy.substack.com/. There has been no reporting of any dialogue between management, editors, and the journalists who have gone on strike. The Guardian has only published the corporate line, has not engaged with the objections of the journalists, and has failed to keep its readers up to date with the issues or with the negotations.
It takes two sides to create a strike
This is a huge failure of trust, a loss of goodwill in the integrity of the paper, which is so very hard won.
And then you send me this bit of corporate speak. I am frankly appalled.
They couldn't even get the name of the Scott Trust right in their response to me, and I was... erm... obliged(?) to correct them on that. It's The Scott Trust Ltd. It's not a trust, even though some not exactly operating in good faith might want it to be mistaken as such. It became a limited company in 2008. But I should admit that I never noticed this myself at the time and had to have it pointed out to me when I started delving into what the blazers was going on there in the last couple of months. Good on you for writing letters, though. At very least it exposes how weak the leadership (if we can call it that) truly is, especially in relation to journalistic content in both newspapers up until now.
congratulations Carole on your story/ putting this information out. surely what is being done is in breach of the terms of the Scott Trust?? has legal advice been sought? and how can readers let their feelings be known to the trustees?
That question, “who is the money behind the money?” can be asked regarding plenty of things, organizations and people these days. There is ‘old money’ and power lurking everywhere propping up all sorts of strange players and general miscreants (like Trump) who on their own are nothing and nobody, but here we are.
I've read some articles and essays in my time, but this one has blown my hair back as much as any of them. Thank you, Carole, for having the courage to investigate, write and publish this so that we may be better informed.
I have in my time been a globally recognised forecaster. Sadly, I've seen this sort of thing before. That The Observer has been acquired so easily, cheaply and oddly suggests to me that The Guardian is the next target. I cannot now see how it will be preserved under the current structure which made claims to protect both titles and extracted money from readers on that basis. I now refer to the organisation as the Scott Truss.
Worse than the unfathomable 'deal' or the money, is the mistreatment of staff and the distasteful disrespect shown by their own leadership. Do they not see that they will lose their best people? It's either gross negligence or it's deliberate destruction. Which is it? And then there's the loss of trust caused. Everywhere I go now online relating to this subject, I see comment after comment (as Dave Gorman says, "on the bottom half of the internet") regarding cancellation of voluntary subscriptions and donations to The Observer and Guardian. Loyal readers of many years are leaving in their droves. That none of this whole sorry episode has been reported fairly and openly in either newspaper beyond the letters pages, has left so many readers uncertain of what they can now believe across other reporting. And all of this was just so unnecessary.
This is a deeply moving moment for many. My wife was moved to tears by this piece and she hardly ever cries at anything. I'm the soppy one. Thanks to you, Carole, the dark "spluttering incomprehension" now has some illumination. You have my full support. Your current journalist colleagues who stand with you have my full backing too. Free and fair press is being deliberately eroded everywhere, of that there is no doubt. The Observer now looks lost, and without The Guardian to depend on in future, many people around the world will not know where to turn to when it really counts for them. You know, like when there's a global pandemic or something and leaders are saying it's just a bit of flu and drinking bleach might help. And their fawning media parrots that. I believe it is partly our responsibility to guide others to where they can find true reporting never besmirched by the personal interests of ownership or power. For the moment, I point those willing to listen to Carole Cadwalladr, and I look to you and many of your colleagues and other longstanding, dependable journalists with integrity in a diminishing industry to guide me and the rest of us who give a crap that what we read is the reality, no matter how hard that reality is to take.
As I've seen in a couple of places recently, I restate with a tip of the hat:
Incredibly grateful for your courage in writing this Carole. So much easier to turn a blind eye and walk past in the other side.
This is extremely murky indeed. I'm a longtime reader of both the Guardian and Observer and I'm feeling that if the Scott Trust and / or the editor-in-chief don't make a full disclosure to their readers it will simply add to the existing feeling that the Guardian in particular has not for a long time been entirely open with the public about its collective thinking and, more importantly, what it doesn't print and why (I'm thinking in particular of its many shortcomings in the past 15 months over the Israeli-perpetrated genocide in Gaza, as well as the murderous activities in the West Bank, but there are many other issues much wider than those).
The unforgivable mistreatment of some of the Guardian's most distinguished journalists comes to mind (several of them, I'm sad to say, finding refuge in rightwing papers, even if they haven't compromised their political affiliations, but it's shameful they had to save their livelihoods in that way). I have long thought that Viner was always the wrong person for the job and I've seen or heard nothing recently to make me change my mind.
I know I've said elsewhere that both the Guardian and the Observer are pale shadows of what they used to be (my reading of them goes back to the 1950s, especially in my youth, the Observer) but I've also said that there are journalists on both papers of outstanding brilliance and distinction and I hope and believe that at least the Guardian (who knows what will become of the Observer now in the light of events) can return to its former glory (it may need a complete change of editorial team).
But right now, it's murky. Very murky.
As a U.S.-based reader of the Guardian, this brings sadness to my heart, whilst at the same time, lending some confusion to their perpetual requests for money to keep them “independent,” and “not owned by billionaires.” Makes one wonder…
Downgraded my subscription to less $$ and moved to supporting Carole
I am querying the requests now as well as my monthly subscription.
I'll enjoy every climate change article from The Guardian more now... as if their days were counted.
The Guardian was the only Anglo mass media outlet reporting on climate change with honesty. The fossil fuel bosses couldn't allow that to happen.
Thanks so much for your reporting on this Carole, which has been almost entirely absent from the Guardian's site. Makes me quite concerned about where one can get independent reporting by professional journalists without big oil being involved.
I've become a paid subscriber of your substack today. Keep it up!
Thank you, Carole, for your impeccable reporting as usual. I am dispirited and quite frankly upset by what's going on. I have always read the Guardian, and the Observer on Sundays, convinced of the philosophy behind the Scott Trust, to do things properly, transparently and clearly, with care for climate change and all that that implies. I donate regularly to the Guardian, I have even published a couple of articles online, but now I am doubtful.
I am grateful for your depth of investigation which is now more urgent than ever.
Thank you.
I am going to unsubscribe from The Guardian and subscribe to you and others on Substack.
Did it. Felt a bit bereft in unsubscribing from the Guardian but have subscribed here and to a few others and have money left to continue to subscribe to independent journalists. Will re-evaluate after a year and see where things are at.
Yes, I am also about to unsubscribe from The Guardian, and will unambiguously tell them exactly why.
What a HUGE disappointment this whole fiasco has been.
A clear account of unclear dealings. What I do not understand is why the Scott trust is giving the Observer away (can that even be considered a legal commercial transaction?) or what benefit they get instead?
Too big a drain on shared costs will be the Guardian argument I imagine. Giving it away reduces costs.
Not sure if they're actually of any use, but most of those deleted articles on the Tortoise site are archived on the Wayback Machine if anyone wants to see them:
* https://web.archive.org/web/20241124232335/https://www.tortoisemedia.com/the-responsible-energy-forum-2024/
* https://web.archive.org/web/20240802011816/https://www.tortoisemedia.com/topic/china/
* https://web.archive.org/web/20220629152513/https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2019/01/28/chinas-ageing-population/
* https://web.archive.org/web/20220629003404/https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2019/02/26/china-trade/
* https://web.archive.org/web/20220707170519/https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2019/09/08/xi-takes-hong-kong/
There may be others, that's just the ones I checked.
Thank you. 🙏🏼
Yes, thank you. Sterling work.
If they basically gave The Observer away, I wish that an organization that believes in the values that the UK was built on had been able to take it over. I just officially subscribed to The Guardian because frankly it does a better job of covering the USA than any of our newspapers. Because it’s not in the USA, I hoped that there would be less anticipatory obedience. That was dumb because obviously this is a loosely knit international coalition of autocrats, billionaires, corps &,criminals, cooperatively working globally to be freed from pesky nation-states so they can financially interact with each other untraceably, and with zero accountability.
I used to call them the three 'U's, Sandy - the Unseen, the Unelected, and the Unaccountable. But from someone else via Carole recently, we were gifted a much better a two-word term which I have now totally blanked on. Steve 'always helpful' B.
I stole your 3 Us for Facebook… it seems they are everywhere. 😭
It was always something I offered for free for anyone to use in trying to describe a lot of stuff which is hideously complex. So you haven't stolen anything from me, Sara, and you are welcome to use as and where you would like to without any acknowledgement, reference or credit required.
Thankyou. I now have an excuse and a forum on which to publish my unacknowledged letter of a few days ago to the Guardian …
"
I’m just an ordinary Guardian supporter, finally arriving “home” after a journey starting from The Times (from 1966), and passing through the Independent (while it still was). Many of the arguments put forward by the Scott Trust since their deal with Tortoise became public knowledge seem persuasive, and Tortoise, at least according to their website, certainly “talk the talk”. Why, then, if the deal was so good, were Guardian/Observer stakeholders — particularly journalists, even the editor — not kept in the picture ? Why does the Trust insist that all were consulted when they were clearly not ? These questions throw a lot of doubt on those otherwise persuasive arguments ! More practically, many questions have been raised after the deal was announced and cynically finalised while being protested. I would pick out the proposed £25m “new investment” … on the face of it that sum seems grossly insufficient for the proposed “rejuvenation”, but, whether or not that assumption is wrong, it is clear that the Trust could easily afford to rectify past mistakes and update the Observer brand themselves. After all, they implicitly took on that responsibility when they bought the title.
"
Subscribed.
I'm a long term subscriber to the Guardian/Observer from New Zealand. I've always admired the publications' independent centrist journalism. What I fail to understand is why the Observer was "sold" when none of the background articles support its "sale". I am most disappointed in the Scott Trust's actions in this matter. The staff and the readers have been sabotaged by the Trust.
My response to a non-response from 'Mike, Customer Services Representative'
This is exactly the kind of corporate speak I do not expect from the Guardian. I read your newspaper. I have seen the communiques from the Scott Trust. I am a subscriber. So no, as far as I can see you have made no effort to respond to my query.
I do not know the pros and cons of this deal. I do know that the Guardian and Observer journalists, who I have been encouraged to trust by the newspaper and the Scott Trust and my own experience, have raised all kinds of objects and have asked for a pause in negotiations. So have previous editors and media experts. See the link I sent from prize winning journalist Carol Cadwaldre https://broligarchy.substack.com/. There has been no reporting of any dialogue between management, editors, and the journalists who have gone on strike. The Guardian has only published the corporate line, has not engaged with the objections of the journalists, and has failed to keep its readers up to date with the issues or with the negotations.
It takes two sides to create a strike
This is a huge failure of trust, a loss of goodwill in the integrity of the paper, which is so very hard won.
And then you send me this bit of corporate speak. I am frankly appalled.
They couldn't even get the name of the Scott Trust right in their response to me, and I was... erm... obliged(?) to correct them on that. It's The Scott Trust Ltd. It's not a trust, even though some not exactly operating in good faith might want it to be mistaken as such. It became a limited company in 2008. But I should admit that I never noticed this myself at the time and had to have it pointed out to me when I started delving into what the blazers was going on there in the last couple of months. Good on you for writing letters, though. At very least it exposes how weak the leadership (if we can call it that) truly is, especially in relation to journalistic content in both newspapers up until now.
congratulations Carole on your story/ putting this information out. surely what is being done is in breach of the terms of the Scott Trust?? has legal advice been sought? and how can readers let their feelings be known to the trustees?
That question, “who is the money behind the money?” can be asked regarding plenty of things, organizations and people these days. There is ‘old money’ and power lurking everywhere propping up all sorts of strange players and general miscreants (like Trump) who on their own are nothing and nobody, but here we are.
I've read some articles and essays in my time, but this one has blown my hair back as much as any of them. Thank you, Carole, for having the courage to investigate, write and publish this so that we may be better informed.
I have in my time been a globally recognised forecaster. Sadly, I've seen this sort of thing before. That The Observer has been acquired so easily, cheaply and oddly suggests to me that The Guardian is the next target. I cannot now see how it will be preserved under the current structure which made claims to protect both titles and extracted money from readers on that basis. I now refer to the organisation as the Scott Truss.
Worse than the unfathomable 'deal' or the money, is the mistreatment of staff and the distasteful disrespect shown by their own leadership. Do they not see that they will lose their best people? It's either gross negligence or it's deliberate destruction. Which is it? And then there's the loss of trust caused. Everywhere I go now online relating to this subject, I see comment after comment (as Dave Gorman says, "on the bottom half of the internet") regarding cancellation of voluntary subscriptions and donations to The Observer and Guardian. Loyal readers of many years are leaving in their droves. That none of this whole sorry episode has been reported fairly and openly in either newspaper beyond the letters pages, has left so many readers uncertain of what they can now believe across other reporting. And all of this was just so unnecessary.
This is a deeply moving moment for many. My wife was moved to tears by this piece and she hardly ever cries at anything. I'm the soppy one. Thanks to you, Carole, the dark "spluttering incomprehension" now has some illumination. You have my full support. Your current journalist colleagues who stand with you have my full backing too. Free and fair press is being deliberately eroded everywhere, of that there is no doubt. The Observer now looks lost, and without The Guardian to depend on in future, many people around the world will not know where to turn to when it really counts for them. You know, like when there's a global pandemic or something and leaders are saying it's just a bit of flu and drinking bleach might help. And their fawning media parrots that. I believe it is partly our responsibility to guide others to where they can find true reporting never besmirched by the personal interests of ownership or power. For the moment, I point those willing to listen to Carole Cadwalladr, and I look to you and many of your colleagues and other longstanding, dependable journalists with integrity in a diminishing industry to guide me and the rest of us who give a crap that what we read is the reality, no matter how hard that reality is to take.
As I've seen in a couple of places recently, I restate with a tip of the hat:
Then they came for the journalists.
We don't know what happened after that.