I applaud the move either way, but stopping doing something that's 0.1% of your revenue vs something that is 25% are two very different things.
Although I see that's on the way out
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65260002
And good riddance too
But obviously it does create a perception of conflict of interest...
We should speculate in every direction while considering the motivations of a person or company, and we should weigh the likelihood and potential costs of being right or wrong about our suspicions when choosing how to react to events. Blinding ourselves to motivations (actual or possible) is a losing game which will only make us easier to manipulate.
Totally disagree, especially for companies. Companies are usually thousands of people. Any action was probably hotly debated, and some agreed and some opposed. It's just silly to treat a company like an individual person who has good motivations and bad motivations.
You do you, but I don't think making up motivations and then acting like they're true makes anyone less easy to manipulate.
An example is https://www.telegraph.co.uk/betting/casino-guides/blackjack/
It's just odd to have this on a trusted national newspaper. Feels very out of place.
> Guardian Media Group increasingly relies on contributions directly from readers, rather than advertising, for its income.
Which is no wonder they 'seem' to be continuously begging their readers to pay. Now after this, I should expect them to be begging even more aggressively, unless someone is funding them grants or what not, since they are still not telling us something or giving an exact figure.
Either way, one-sided publications like the Guardian is hardly worth paying for regardless.
There is hardly anything better left though and the Guardian is one of the very few independent major publications left which is something.
> begging even more aggressively
So you prefer a paywall or them being reliant on gambling ads, maybe a rich owner who definitely has no agenda buying it would be the best option?