"The Guardian, which until not that long ago was respected but little-read outside the UK, is now in the front ranks of English-language newspapers and one of the most important and influential journalistic organisations in the world."
That's the intro to a Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) article, "The trust-fund newspaper", by Ryan Chittum, which was published online today.
After pointing out that the paper broke the hacking scandal, carried the Edward Snowden leaks and played a prominent role in the Wikileaks revelations, he states that it "has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years."
But The Guardian "is a trust-fund kid," he writes, and therefore "subsidised by earnings from the Scott Trust's investments."
He raises the question about how long the trust's assets could bankroll the losses and continues:
"We got the answer last week: a very long time. The Guardian Media Group sold its remaining stake in one of those assets, Trader Media Group, to the other shareholder, Apax, for a billion dollars."
He approvingly cites an article by Press Gazette editor Dominic Ponsford in which he argued that the "windfall" puts the trust/Guardian in sight of a £1bn trust fund "to protect its journalism for ever."
(NB: The inappropriate description "windfall" appears only in the headline]. Anyway, Chittum goes on to suggest that the trust, on the basis of its current holdings, could fund the paper until about 2045. He concludes:
"This is what allows The Guardian to turn up its nose at digital subscriptions. It's in an enviable situation. It's sitting on at least a billion and a half in cash and assets with no shareholders to siphon off dividends... very little debt, and a mandate to use that cash to support the paper's journalism."
I've no idea if he is right, but I am delighted to share that with you.
Source: CJR
